Comments about ‘Birth control coverage up for federal appeal’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 23 2013 5:35 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

How about this.

Whatever decision this appeals court hands down, we all accept and move on?

I didn't say we had to like it. But that we should accept it and stop the debate.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

How many times have you run this same story over the last few months? Slow news day since all the far right conspiracies fail apart?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

JoeBlow,
Your annoyance at the story trumps the rights of the aggrieved?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Annoyance?

Where did you get that idea?

All I said is let the courts decide and then accept it and move on. My comment was directed at those on both sides of the issue.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

In the 1990 case of Employment Division v Smith, with respect to citizens being allowed to ignore federal law on religious grounds, Justice Scalia wrote the following:

"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

This whole birth control issue is completely fake and manufactured by the religious right, and if it ever does reach the SC, Hobby Lobby et al will lose in a 9-0 decision.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

joeblow,
really?

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Since this is basically about forcing the Catholic Church to pay for other people’s birth control, let me offer some prophylactic rejection of the standard left wing rationalizations:



1) "It's the law" Actually no it is not - it is a mandate - it is merely how Obama and Sebelius choose to interpret the law - they can change their interpretation without going back to Congress.



2) "A church must obey the law” Yes - except when the law is unconstitutional (or not a law). This is not about asking a church to conform to simple secular accounting practices or to even not do something that is otherwise ok with their religion (i.e. smoke peyote) - it is about forcing people to pay for, or practice, something that violates their faith - that is as offensive as government forcing someone to attend, or pay tithing, to an "official" government church. It is truly ironic that those who screech about the non-establishment clause of the construction are so incredibly hostile to the non interference clause.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

(cont)so anti-war protestors may dislike a particular war, but they cannot legally argue that the government has no right to be in the defense business. The constitution specifically requires the government to stay out of the enforcing religion business; therefore religious people have the constitution on their side when it comes to arguments opposing government forcing them to violate their religion. It is in the governments written job description to NOT impose religion. Forcing someone to pay for an abortion or contraceptives against their religion is far more onerous than merely asking someone to tolerate another person expression of religion. If you cannot stand seeing a cross on a roadside, simply because it is on public property, even though it requires nothing more than mere tolerance on your part - then how can you credibly demand that government use its full force to insist that those who do not share your religious views, PAY for your personal choices against their will

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Counter Intelligence – “Since this is basically about forcing the Catholic Church to pay for other people’s birth control.”

Sorry, that won’t fly…

The Catholic Church and even organizations run by religious groups have been exempted from the mandate. What’s at stake here is (in the case of Hobby Lobby) a purely secular organization wanting an exemption because one guy at the top has a religious objection. And that is precisely what Scalia’s opinion argued against.

The government “forces” people to pay for things all the time that may cause a religious objection (e.g. Native Americans believe the environment is sacred but they still paying taxes to build roads, dams, etc…).

But here’s why this is a fake issue – 99% of the population has used birth control including 98% of Catholics. So who is really against this?

The fact is this is a right wing media pushed effort aimed at attacking an administration they hate… nothing more.

Don’t you guys ever get exhausted by all the drummed up, mountain-out-of-an-anthill outrage?

bandersen
Saint George, UT

The partisan bickering that occurs when God's laws and/or the Constitution isn't followed is a mystery. Republican/Democrat though they be, I guess it is nice that there is an appearance of working for the benefit of the citizens. Irony, the difference between reality and perception, is always amusing, especially when it is dramatic irony, like reading the 'srguments' here. Without stating the obvious here, this question is not even a question, if citizens properly understood the Constitution. It is amusing to see what is stated as an argument.

the truth
Holladay, UT

If it is their choice and their body,

shouldn't it also be their pocketbook?

Otherwise it our money and our choice.

And the people do not want to fund other's choices.

Businesses do not want to fund other's choices.

And churches do not want to fund other's choices.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@the truth – “If it is their choice and their body, shouldn't it also be their pocketbook?”

I assume you would argue this same point regarding any other medical treatment covered by insurance that involves some level of choice, yes? Things like Viagra for example?

And where would you draw the line on choice? Would people who eat poorly and don’t exercise, and then at some point need hundreds of thousands of dollars of care (which 99% could never afford on their own) fall under your choice umbrella?

Seems to me under your model we either make a large number of medical interventions a “cash only” business or we turn insurance into something that would make the Chinese government look benign.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments