Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: President Obama's compromise for contraceptives misses the mark

Comments

Return To Article
  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 17, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    I disagree. This is a perfect compromise. It allows women to receive, though insurance, the basic preventative health care they need and deserve (including all forms of contraception which, by definition, does not include pregnancy termination despite the fact that some peole erroneously claim differently), while removing from establishments of religion (churches) and their directly-owned and directly-run hospitals, charities, etc., the need to provide or pay for contraception if that conflicts with their policies and dogma. This compromise also denies establishmnts of religion the ability to impose their dogma and beliefs on people who do not agree with to them, thereby denying them the ability to Talibanize the United States. This is the best of all proposed solutions to date.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil: "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."

    You're totally missing the point. You and others. Religions don't want to decide what people can and cannot do in their bedrooms. That's a total stretch. People can do whatever they pllease. What religions don't want is provide healthcare for what is to them repugnant... funding of the killing of the unborn through employer provided health insurance.

    If folks want contraception, fine. They can take their own money and purchase it. If they want an abortion, fine. Pay for it themselves.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    If a person can't afford a condom, they shouldn't be having sex. We shouldn't have to pay for their entertainment.

  • Clydesdale Tooele, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    If you have a right to health care, it follows you have a right to the best healthcare in the world. How come Obama has a right to better health care than me? "All animals are created equal, but pigs are created more equal"

  • Clydesdale Tooele, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    A company should be able to pay for whatever they want or don't want. That also falls under freedom of speech. "my company won't pay for viagra for me, those swearwords" -signed liberals. You have the freedom to work for whoever you want. If you don't like your companies benefits=leave! Go start your own darned company if you're so smart libs.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 6, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Lost in DC.... read more carefully. The compromise is that the coverage for contraception would be funded outside of the employers current coverage - the employer isn't covering any of the cost. Therefor, they should have no say. They shouldn't have any say anyways. But this keeps their sacred funds from being used for contraception.

    I wonder if these highly moral companies who do not want their employes to use contraception and feel that is their business - also are as morally concerned that they pay their employees enough to support family cost when there is no family planning. Do they feel the same moral mandata - are willing to take a stand - and fund larger familiy sizes?

    I personally think it is none of the employers business - its neither their right, nor responsibility. If they feel it is their business to tell pre-menopausal women in their late 30s or 40s they should no longer have relations with their husbands... well, I think that is a step too far... and none of their business. Preventing unwanted and unsafe pregnancies should not be part of some political grand standing. It isn't just sex crazed teens on the pill.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:23 p.m.

    Contraceptives reduce abortions. That is all that should have to be said.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Feb. 5, 2013 6:30 p.m.

    This is not about cost, or forcing religious orders to provide coverage. It is about finding a poison pill to make contraception more difficult to obtain. I don't see anyone calling for insurance companies not to pay for viagra and the like.

    Not about cost or religious freedom, its about religious dogma run amuck.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 5:35 p.m.

    worf
    Mcallen, TX

    Being an American citizen is voluntary. If you choose to be an American you are expected to follow the mandatory rules and laws governing all Americans. It's your choice.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 5, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    Ultra Bob,

    People choosing to live together and share?

    That's an excuse for the takers. This country choose freedom, and liberty.

    Share is voluntary, while stealing are when things are forced away from you. With contraceptives, those who are responsible, and work, are denied the right of choice.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    Copy Cat

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."-Amendment Nine

    Simply because a right is not enumerated does not mean it is not given. The right to privacy is another such example.

    Religious freedom, no matter how enshrined it is in the Constitution still cannot violate the rights of another. If healthcare is a right, and I believe a very reasonable argument can be made for it, it cannot be trumped by your right of religion.

    The issue isn't cost (I am a Soldier with very good healthcare provided by you, the taxpayer) but rather do all individuals have equal access to healthcare. As stated earlier, I can certainly understand both sides of the argument. I certainly would like to be compelled to do something I felt wrong, nor would I ask that of someone else; however with Health Insurance being tied to employment, protections have to be in place to ensure all who need medical care can receive it. Those who oppose this should use preaching to lower the demand.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    All employees are entitled to equal protections, including contraceptives. The should not be denied such in the name of "religous liberty."

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Feb. 5, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    have been off the grid for several weeks.

    anybody know if Hobby Lobby ever had to actually hand over any money for the fines they were threatened with? Could it still happen that they will be forced to pay, or has the president backed off from the bad press as a pr move?

    thanks to whoever can fill me in on the status of the hobby lobby situation.

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 3:43 p.m.

    Darrell

    Can't afford contraception? Go to any campus health, county health, planned parenthood, or any other birth control give away place. There are plenty of people who will happily supply free birth control because they believe in it.

    Why do you feel the need to violate religious folks ability to live their religion?

    Why do you feel the need to control others?

    You will not be any happier if you successfully force people to violate their religion.

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    Darrel

    "...Every American has the right to Healthcare," - There is NO such right in the Constitution of the United States. Go read it! It is not there.

    "and religious freedom should be used to deny that." - Religious freedom IS guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. Religious freedom trumps health care according to our constitution.

    I know that through 2 and a half centuries men have given their all to preserve this country and the freedoms afforded us in the Constitution. I have a profound reverence for those freedoms.

    No one is trying to take away your birth control. You have the right to buy it and use it. I believe in its use and I have paid for every cent of mine. But I know many devoted religious people who believe its use is sinful, per their religion. I would never trample their right to freely exercise their religion to save me a couple hundred dollars a year in birth control costs. I cannot understand why so many of you who would.

    Would you want your freedoms sold for a couple hundred bucks? I am sure not.

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Feb. 5, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    Copy Cat – “Bottom line: If you want birth control, Buy It YOURSELF! Don't make anyone else pay for it.”

    Did you not read the article and the compromise proposal? Cost is no longer the issue…

    But I’m curious if you would have that same response if, say, your Christian Science employer shouted at you “Buy It YOURSELF!” (by the way, no need to shout), when you asked why he/she wouldn’t cover a needed blood transfusion?

    And the claim that one is medically necessary and the other is not is irrelevant (to preempt the obvious retort), as that is not the argument the Catholic Church is making. They are choosing to see it as a denial of their right to practice (i.e., dictate) their religion, rather than correctly seeing their own view as a violation of the establishment clause. [When Obama tries to force nuns to take birth control, then they’ll have a case.]

    And since the cost issue has now been removed from the debate, it should be quite clear to any reasonable observer that this fight is purely political.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    Let's be very clear. The only contraceptives covered by insurance are women's contraceptives. This editorial argues that women's reproductive health care is so uniquely special that the rules applied to other kinds of health care don't apply to women's health care. That's a very tenuous argument at best.

    The comments here reveal lots of assumptions about women who use contraception. Research shows that 98 to 99 percent of American women will use contraception during their lifetimes. Using contraception isn't a sign that a woman is promiscuous or immoral. Lots of women who already have children use contraception since they can't afford more children. Isn't that exercising responsiblity?

    What's more, employers cannot legally ask employees which medications they're using or why they're using them. That means employer health plans are already paying for employees to take antibiotics to fight off sexually transmitted infections.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 5, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Procreation is between a married couple and God.

    ============

    So, that settles it.
    That means it's NONE of your business, is it Mike?

    BTW - the same applies to -
    the Church
    the State
    and your Political Party.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    @Copy Cat

    Hypothetical argument, let's say I belong to a religion to teaches I must wed at 20, but cannot bear children until 25.

    Person B belongs to a religion that says they cannot pay for contraception...

    Who wins?

    That is why you cannot legislate your religious beliefs.

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    Tyler D

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

    Bottom line: If you want birth control, Buy It YOURSELF! Don't make anyone else pay for it. THat might make them violate the exercise of their religion, which is unconstitutional.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    There are no such things as absolute rights. Everything "right" has reasonable restrictions. The classic example is I cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there is one. I have the right to assemble, but I cannot incite riot. If I am a member of a religion that teaches it must stone anyone caught in the act of adultry, and I act on that, I can reasonably expect to be thrown in jail. Does that impede my right to "religious freedom"?

    My rights cannot infringe on your rights. I can preach, and try to persuade (DC 121:41) but I cannot impose or legislate my beliefs onto another, no matter how strongly I feel on the subject.

    I certainly understand and appreciate the quandry certain organizations may find themselves in, such as the Catholic Church, and would be the first to say there is no one perfect solution. Every American has the right to Healthcare, and religious freedom should be used to deny that.
    I feel the best solution is to provide what the law stipulates, but then use preaching, persuasion on your members against using it.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    @LostinDC
    You ever heard of the FCC? Try and say the F-word on TV or the radio and see what happens. Try and discuss a topic(such as sex) the FCC finds objectionable, see how much money you're fined. Try and find a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook or other material the Feds find objectionable. If you can find that type of literature, you most certainly are monitored while you do it.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Feb. 5, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    @lost in DC

    I would suggest spending a little less time on trying to swing at every fastball you see coming your way (i.e., answering every commentator), and a bit more focus on constructing good arguments.

    And while I’m sure it feels like you cranked every ball thrown right out of the park, from my perspective I’d say you have a single, a couple of foul balls, and a whole lot of swing-and-a-miss (strikes).

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 5, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    Lost in DC - Touche'! You make a good point. Although it seems that the government hasn't done much about "bearing false witness" otherwise we wouldn't have many members left in Congress and we might not have been stuck in a war based on false premises. And most advertisers would be filling our prisons, etc, etc, etc.

    And so, it's a complicated issue and what the president has dione is offer a reasonable solution that allows a choice to be made instead of denying a choice, as has been proposed by this the DN editorial.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    Re: ". . . the Affordable Care Act, in its current state, gives them - choices."

    No. They already have that choice. They can choose to buy or to receive "free" contraception provided by any number of libertine organizations.

    No one's stopping them.

    The ONLY choice affected by dictatorial Obamacare implementing regulations is that of real people to avoid participating in what they consider sin.

    Just as the First Amendment-hating Obama regime planned it from the beginning.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    Noodle,
    how are we denying free speech or freedom of the press? Your comment would be funny except you seem to believe it, which is tragic.

    Bluedevil,
    Nice twist of the facts. No one is saying employers can do that, only that they shouldn’t have to pay.

    ECR,
    You mean you DON’T want the government enforcing the moral code of “thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness”?

    couples do have choices – they don’t need Obamacare to force their employers to pay for it

    KJB1, George, Tyler D
    Nice twist and obfuscation – nothing in the proposal does what you say

    Dektol
    Viagra is the OPPOSITE of contraceptives – but OK, don’t pay for it.

    Craig
    He’s really not

    Pagan,
    You cannot cite Christ when you more often decry Him.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    BO has set a double standard. He says he cannot do anything about families priced out of Obamacare because of the law, but he can someone make a deal on the abortion and contraceptive mandate contained therein? Why does BO have wiggle room here but not when it comes to some families being priced out of Obamacare?

    Because he cares more about forcing his abortion mandate on all than he does about families having insurance.

    Roland,
    Costs, etc, do not address the basic 1st amendment right to freedom of conscience, - your comment is moot.

    Joeblow, hutterite, Pagan
    Which of YOUR constitutional rights shall we compromise, then move on? 1st? 4th? 5th? 14th? 13th?

    Timj,
    Being forced to pay for it violates their conscience. I am sorry you do not see that.

    Cjb,
    The insurance doesn’t appear from thin air – it come as premiums are paid – premiums which would violate conscience.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Feb. 5, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

    The free exercise thereof does not mean dictating your religion to others. And since for most people healthcare is tied to employment (it's high time we decouple that nonsense), I believe the first part is what holds sway here - "make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

    Bottom line: if you don't believe in birth control, don't use it.

    But since many insurance plans have provided at least partial coverage of birth control before the ACA, I can't help thinking this is just another picked fight motivated largely by the "hate Obama" crowd and their media amplifiers.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    Just because your employer does not have a condoms and birth control pills in the break room, free for the taking, does not mean he/she is treating the employees like serfs.

    Honestly folks, I know you got free "contraceptive supplies" when you moved into the college dorm, but entering adulthood means buying your own stuff for your needs and wants. It is time to grow up and pay for your own.

    Think of it this way, if you want to go drink, YOU buy the drinks. Or do you think your employer should provide alcohol in the break room too, and give you a monthly alcohol voucher? Are they required to give you monthly movie tickets too? Free smokes? because if you are hooked on nicotine, that is a real need? Shall we add heroine to the list too? Where does this end?

    How about employees and employers make their own adult agreement on what will be paid for work given, without government interference. If the employee and employer aren't a good match, they part ways, and seek a better match. Seems pretty simple. It is constitutional. It is freedom. It is not restricting anyone's rights.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 5, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    "Procreation is between a married couple and God."

    Thank you Mike Richards for adding some sanity to this discussion. Whether or not someone chooses to procreate or not should not be left up to their church or to others. It is their choice. That's what the Affordable Care Act, in its current state, gives them - choices.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 5, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    Mike Richards,

    "....Obama thinks that he is above the Constitution. He has no right nor authority to dictate to any establishment of religion what it will or will not do...."
    ____________________

    No one is forcing the Catholic or any other church to be an insurance provider. If they choose to be so engaged, they either follow the same requirements every other provider is required to follow or they can divest themselves of the enterprise.

    If you're looking to see who regards themselves as above the Constitution, you might your focus onto them just a bit. Freedom of religion was never meant to provide any believer with a special exemption from the rule of law.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 5, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    "Congess shall make no law repecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

    Obama thinks that he is above the Constitution. He has no right nor authority to dictate to any establishment of religion what it will or will not do. Procreation is between a married couple and God. How a couple chooses to procreate or to not procreate is not his business.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    Why pay for some ones behavior? - Worf

    What did Jesus do...

    to Mary Magdalene?

    She was most decidedly not a virgin.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    Ok, Then lets make a deal. Liberals will drop the whole contraceptive thing, because conservatives don't want to pay for something they don't believe in. As long as conservatives allow the tax exempt status on churches go away. They use police and fire services like the rest of us. Yet my taxes currently subsidize these services for churches. Sound like a deal?

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 5, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    Mountainman 9:42 "America has become a nation where everyone is forced to finance ...unmarried sexual activity."

    Yes, of course, because the only people who want to prevent pregnancies are unmarried folks. There are a variety of reasons to use contraception including medical reasons. It is dangerous for some women to become pregnant. I know of a woman who has tried and lost several pregnancies because of a specific medical condition. When and if she and her husband decide to have children she will be put on a strict regimen of medication and bed rest. In the meantime should she and her husband be denied the right to have a sexual relationship because a religious organization objects to providing contraception?

    It seems that offering contraception to those who want it, or need it, or simply choose to use it to avoid a pregnancy is a more fair a reasonable policy than denying it to everyone to meet the desires of a specific group. Those who think it is wrong to use can always make that choice, according to their conscience, not according to some government policy.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    Maybe the best compromise would just be to make reproductive healthcare free for all Americans through the Federal Government, that way "Religious Employers" won't need to deal with it at all.

    Our taxes already go to loads of things we don't all support: War, War on Drugs, Death Penalties, etc.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    My beliefs, no matter how sacred, cannot be used to infringe on the rights of another. Healthcare is a right, recognized under the governments obligation to protect Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

    If contraception goes against your moral compass, you and your partner are free to excercise that belief between the two of you. You are even free to preach that morality under the First Ammendment, but you are not free to infringe on the rights of others to choose.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    Worf asks:

    Why pay for some ones behavior?

    In a word, it’s called civilization. It’s when a group of people decide to live together sharing their lives, wealth, problems and solutions. Among other things.

    We give our government the right and authority to make rules governing our conduct according to the wishes of the majority. The goal being the general welfare and benefit of the group. While not everyone will agree with the rules, every body in the group is expected to abide by the rules.

    Contraceptives are deemed to be beneficial to our society. Even to the point where the government makes a rule that they be available to all. The government rule does not force anyone to use contraceptives only that they be available.

    The American Constitution says that the government should promote the welfare of the people, this rule does that.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    Religious beliefs protected by the Constitution are not the basis for public law. It becomes problematic when the Catholic Church, for example, opts to become an insurance provider. Nothing wrong with them doing that, but does than mean that subsequent legislation is to be built around religious orthodoxy and dogma? If so, which belief system is the standard that public law must conform to? See the dilemma?

    I applaud the President for trying to find a practical way to accommodate beliefs within the framework of public law. But he’s dealing with a touchy situation when a church opts to wear a hat other than its ecclesiastical one.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    Sin taxes!

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    If they choose not to offer contraceptives they should be barred from providing Viagra as well.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    Conservatives ask for compromise based on religious arguments...

    and offer none, in return.

    It is very simple. Abortion was legalized over 40 years ago because the ban of abortion was not factually PREVENTING abortions. They were still happening, very much illegally, and with great risk to the person.

    Let's look at Utah. One of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and this was the result:

    'Judge releases beaten teen, citing state's abortion law' - By Emiley Morgan - Published by DSNews - 10/14/09

    'A 17-year-old girl who paid a man to BEAT her in the hopes of terminating her pregnancy has been...'

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    Anything that falls short of allowing organized religions from restricting individual liberties is not going to be enough to appease them. am not sure why he is even bothering at this point. Obama will never be able to bend enough to please. The power elite and needs to stop looking to try. Obama iis a populist and was hired as a populist, there is no rason to be apologetic to the elite for that.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    Re: ". . . I will continue to believe that you're only in favor of religious freedom when it comes to your own religious beliefs."

    No doubt.

    But, if you truly object to paying for the items you list, how on earth can you justify insisting people be FORCED to pay for new things that violate their beliefs?

    It seems that it's your commitment to religious freedom that should be more closely examined.

    But, at any rate, if you support this liberal overreach, I hope you're prepared for the backlash overreach that will surely come, and that your current argument and actions would appear to justify.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    @procurafiscador

    Many people have religious objections to the uses to which the government uses our tax dollars, but they don't have the choice to opt out of paying for these things.

    Specifically, here are some things that I have had to pay for that I consider far more abominable than paying for someone's contraception:

    waterboarding of captured prisoners
    Abu Ghraib torture of prisoners, resulting in multiple deaths
    the entire Iraq war
    solitary confinement of prisoners - including Bradley Manning
    providing taxpayer funds to defend DOMA

    When you take up the cause to allow me to opt out of paying for these things, then I'll accept that you are a supporter of religious freedom. Until then, I will continue to believe that you're only in favor of religious freedom when it comes to your own religious beliefs.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 5, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    America has become a nation where everyone is forced to finance immoral behavior of others; in this case, unmarried sexual activity.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 5, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    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.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    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 state!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    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.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    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...

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    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.”

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    Obama does not care about people's religious liberties! He only cares about redistribution.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:18 a.m.

    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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:15 a.m.

    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 late.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    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.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 6:43 a.m.

    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 argument.

  • Timj South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 6:37 a.m.

    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.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 6:11 a.m.

    Gee. What a shock. The dnews producing an anti-Obama editorial. Now that's not something you see every single day...

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 5:08 a.m.

    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?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 5, 2013 4:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 12:10 a.m.

    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.