Quantcast

Comments about ‘Appeals court deals blow to contraceptive mandate after challenge on religious grounds’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Nov. 1 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
cjb
Bountiful, UT

Are Jehovas Witness employers now free to not provide coverage to employees for blood transfusions and all operations that require such?

Do we want a country where employers can push their religious views on employees?

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

I can see the Employer over reach into the personal life of it Employee's dependents. Who invited the employer into the room to make medical decisions for an Employee or their Family? . Case 1: The Teenage daughter of an employee wants birth control pills to prevent babies. Does the employer fire the employee or something else? Case 2: The Teenage daughter of an employee wants birth control pills to manage ovarian cysts. Does the employer fire the employee or something else? Case 3 Employer's religous beliefs are that men with "ED" should not be allowed meds to treat the problem. Because ED is God's punishment for Adam's sin.

Prodicus
Provo, UT

cjb, we want a country where people are free to make reasonable contracts, including contracts for employment that do not give as freebies a long list of government-mandated extras to which employers may have all kinds of objections (religious or otherwise).

I am perfectly happy with the idea that a JW company could enter into employment contracts where it didn't provide free access to blood transfusions. They wouldn't be forcing their religious views on anybody, just refusing to provide benefits they don't agree with. Employees should be able to purchase their own health care with their own money.

If the government mandated that employers provide their employees free SUVs along with 500 gallons of free gasoline per year, businesses with any kind of environmental conscience should object. If the government mandated that employers provide their employees with twenty pounds of meat per week, vegetarian-oriented companies should object. Those mandates are no more ridiculous than the contraceptive mandate, and the fact that some people (not all) who object to providing employees free contraceptives do so on religious grounds is no reason why their objections should count less than the vegetarians'.

IsaacsTM
Huntingtown, MD

Who invited the Federal Government in to force individuals to support moral decisions they do not agree with? BYU track star you are making up some straw men arguments here. It is the government that was forcing these folks to provide coverage they did not want to provide. The employees could get birth control pills if they want to buy them - no big deal and not a big cost. The government should get out of the way and let us as free people work where we choose to work and employ who we choose to employ. This kind of government control leads to bad law and court decisions where wedding photographers are forced to work gay weddings that they oppose on moral grounds. The constitution does not have to get into each little dispute between people. It is meant as a restriction on Federal Government power and not as a control over disagreements between two private citizens.

Bob K
porland, OR

IsaacsTM
Huntingtown, MD
The employees could get birth control pills if they want to buy them - no big deal and not a big cost....

THIS is what is wrong with America today: the well off looking down on the poor.
Women working minimum wage jobs may choose between shoes for the kids, and making sure there is not another unaffordable kid to burden the family and the community.

It is not a requirement for low wage jobs to be sophisticated and intelligent to be you.
You ask women to be gutsy and resourceful enough to go outside insurance, and perhaps steal from the husband's beer money to buy pills, only to perhaps get beaten for it.

In the real world, poor working women have tough choices every day. May I suggest you talk this over with Jesus Christ?

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Bob K

Are you saying the poor and women are not capable being responsible and taking care of themselves? That the poor and women are not capable being responsible for their own choices?

That someone else must take care of them and make choices for them and be responsible for them?

I disagree.

The poor and women are better than that. And are capable of much more than you give them credit for.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Catholic Health Association:
"HHS has now established an accommodation that will allow our ministries to continue offering health insurance plans for their employees as they have always done.

We have prepared this explanation for members to help them understand the accommodation and how to implement it. Throughout this process, CHA has been in dialogue with the leadership of the Bishops' Conference, the Administration and HHS. We are pleased that our members now have an accommodation that will not require them to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage.

We also recognize that this resolution has not been what some organizations, including the Bishops' Conference, asked for on behalf of a wider group."
(June 28, 2013)

Sister Carol Keehan, CEO of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which represents 600 hospitals and 1,400 other health-care facilities, announced that CHA would comply with the rules, or “accommodation,” that the Department of Health and Human Services has drawn up for employers who object to providing insurance plans that cover contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization. HHS designed an accommodation last year and revised it on June 28.
(July 10, 2013)

to comment

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