Published: Tuesday, Feb. 5 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
A recent study found that women who were given access to contraceptives at no
cost had an abortion rate that was reduced by two-thirds. Since abortion rates
have already declined by 30% since 1980, a further 2/3 reduction would lead to a
abortion rate 76% below its 1980 level. That's more than we could
accomplish with the passage of any law.That's something for the
religious to be happy about.
Seldom are compromises perfect. This seems pretty reasonable.Seems
that the first argument used was that "we don't want to pay for things
we are morally opposed to."This compromise seems to address that
concern.Could it be that the real goal is to limit the use of birth
control?Coming up with a reasonable compromise may be impossible
when aiming at a moving target.
Re: "Under the administration's proposed compromise, a separate
insurance plan covering contraceptives would be provided . . . free of cost . .
. ."There's what makes this "compromise" anything
but.As the editorial points out -- nothing of value is truly
free.The contraceptives and abortion drugs have to be bought and
paid for. Unless the President's proposal includes an offer to cover the
cost from his own deep pocket, people whose religious beliefs prohibit their
involvement in behavior they consider a grievous sin will -- against their
principles -- become unwilling enablers of the behavior.This liberal
overreach is as dangerous for liberals as it is for people of faith. In the
normal political give and take, liberal overreach is sure to end. Liberals are
now setting up the mechanism and enabling those who will surely demand a
backlash overreach of similar magnitude.Are you ready, liberals?
Gee. What a shock. The dnews producing an anti-Obama editorial. Now that's
not something you see every single day...
Religious freedoms aren't being violated here. People still have the right
to decide whether or not they use contraceptives. No one's forcing
contraceptive use on them.
This article misses the mark. It will not be the employer that will be ensuring
a work place that provides contraceptives, but it will be the law. Under the law
all people are to have access to such insurance.In order to sin, a
person must make a choice to do it, and because it is the law that is requiring
this insurance, the employer has no choice and is therefore not sinning.It would also help if religions would choose their battles. It is easy
to see why abortion is wrong. It is too close to murder. This however is a
nusance rule. It is religion trying to make people feel guilty for people having
sex unless they want to have a baby. It is religion taking a perfectly good and
natural act between two people and trying to insert themself in between those
people. This is why there is not much sympathy in this case for the religious
This opinion is outrageous. If its against your religion, don't use
contraception. If you don't want to be a part of our societies health care
system, do what the Amish do, or the local polygamous sects, separate yourself.
Otherwise, I would have thought BOMBS topped the list higher than contraception,
but hey, who and I to judge.
Access to contraception is not a religious issue it is an attempt to sabotage
Obama's health care reform. If each employer only allows plans that
support their individual belief system the health care law becomes unworkable.
What if a Jehovah's Witness employer doesn't allow any blood
transfusions on his health care plan? Or what if a Southern Baptist won't
cover any illness associated with drinking? Or what if I decide that having
more than one child is immoral and I refuse to allow my companies self funded
insurance plan to cover the birth of that second child?Sometimes
individual rights to healthcare access trump rights to religious expression.
Which is better: each of three hundred million people acting according to his or
her own conscience, or one government government official dictating what they
all must do? Obamacare is built on the latter model. The closer our approach to
totalitarianism, the more violations of conscience there will be.We
still can repeal this monstrosity of a health care law, but the hour is growing
Why do conservatives only care about their constitutional rights, while
trampling or ignoring others? All you people care about is guns and God. While
you sit there and ignore free speech and freedom of the press. When really those
are even more important than your rights, because without a free press and
without free speech, well, you don't have your other rights either.
Take note of the dozens of passages in Obamacare which say "the Secretary of
HHS shall determine...." Rather than write the law themselves, Congress
chose instead to put immense regulatory power into the hands of one person. This
is why Nancy Pelosi said we would have to pass the law in order to find out
what's in it. The what's-in-it is still being determined by Secretary
Sibelius, and it's not pretty.In this instance, the Secretary
is telling you that you must provide your employees with abortion-inducing
drugs. The fact that is is being done indirectly does not change the substance
of the rule.This is why I called it totalitarianism, and why I
believe there's more to come.
So what the DN is saying, since we have decided on a system of employer based
healthcare, the employers get to decided what you do with your spouse, when you
have kids, how many kids you have, and under what conditions. Making it so that
the employer doesn't have to use any of their own money to sponsor a life
style that is not to their liking isn't enough. No, the DN is proposing
that employers have the ability to reach into your off hours lives, and even
though there is no cost to the employer, that these employers get to determine
what spouses do with each other. Employers get to decide that relations
between legally wedded couples should be restricted for only procreation, and
that is all.Do we not see any level of over reach here. I get that
the employers should not have to pay for things they morally are against. But
then to take that next step that employers also have the right to determine what
happens in the bedrooms of married couples, and determine family planning for
them.... that goes way beyond any right any employer has.
Obama does not care about people's religious liberties! He only cares about
I understand the sentiments expressed in this essay and I agree with many or
most of them. But I wonder when we might ask a different question. When will religious organizations or religious individuals stop asking the
state to enforce their moral code on the population in general? All
our lives would be more pleasant if everyone believed the same things we do.
But they don't. And it would be unrealisitc to expect them to.For those who think that even contraception is sinful they should do all they
can to personally convince others not to use them - of course, within the limits
of lawful and reasonable behavior. But like it or not, the Affordable Care Act
is the law of the land and that option is part of it. It is possible to
separate ones self from practices that go against a moral or religious
principle. Most of us do it every day we live in this secular world.My suggestion would be to “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which
are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
Funny how the same people who go on about getting the government out of
people's lives have no problem with using "religious liberty" to
allow employers to treat their employees like serfs...
The thing is, there's no way everyone could come out satisfied on this. So
we've got to pick a rational, reasonable solution and move on.
Some people's religion doesn't allow them to have any sort of blood
transfusion. Should we exclude that as well? Should my employer use his
financial power to make me follow HIS religion?That's what this
is about. Employers that want to use their financial power to FORCE their
employees to follow their own religions. Ridiculous.You know when
you say the founding fathers were religious, god fearing men it's partially
true. But even so, they have the sense in their heads to separate church and
Re: "People still have the right to decide whether or not they use
contraceptives. No one's forcing contraceptive use on them."Wrong. That's the demonic nature of this liberal NON-compromise.Real people -- people opposed to contraception on moral grounds -- will NOT be
able to avoid enabling and paying for others' contraceptives and chemical
abortions. The regime proposes forcing OTHERS' contraceptive use on
them.And, its proposed fig leaf can't cover the naked truth --
people opposed to contraception and abortifacient morning-after drugs will be
FORCED to buy and distribute them, FORCING them to participate in what they
consider a mortal sin.As usual, liberals are buying votes with our
money. In this case, they're buying godless libertine votes with religious
people's money.Once their narcissistic overreach opens this
Pandora's box, I hope liberals are prepared for the backlash of
anti-liberal overreach proposals that will certainly result from it.
It would be interesting to know the exact specifications of the mark that the
president missed. Hopefully the President of the USA has his aim on
protecting the rights and freedoms of the American people rather than cater to
the beliefs of a church or religion. Seems like the idea in the American
Constitution was to prevent the government from giving favor or disfavor to
churches or religions. According to the article, the presidents
plan would not require the church to pay for insurance for contraceptives, but
would uphold the persons right to choose an insurance that did provide
contraceptives at no cost to the church. But the church is saving that the
government cannot provide rights or freedoms to people in conflict with the
churches beliefs.Giant churches and corporations are in a fierce
competition for control of the American government. The American way of life,
it’s freedoms and rights depend on the prevailing of our government.
Why pay for some ones behavior?Paying for contraceptives is like
having government supply super bowl tickets.We're becoming a
nation of whiners, and beggars.--Thank you Obama for crazy leadership.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments