obamacare 'obamadontcare' plan is going to create such heartaches and
headaches and financial stress. there should be no insurance saying what you
have to have . shows again that obama is an imperialistic nightmare
At least there is one University with some guts. Too many are just thinking
they can do nothing which is exactly what this administration wants them to
believe. GO IRISH!
Rights accrue to individuals first, and we need a health care system in place
that puts people before employers.
If Notre Dame wins this lawsuit, then no one in America can be confident about
their health care benefits anymore. All health care benefits will be subject to
the religious rules of their employers.
I don't see the problem. If you want birth control pills, buy them
yourself! Also they are handed out free at most healthcare clinics and are very
inexpensive. Why does Obama want to force this issue on others? Interesting
question, isn't it?
Catholic church has a long history of being on the wrong side of issues.
Religous organizations continually think of their own best interests and most
are opposed to free will. Where in the bible does it say "thou shall not
particapate in family planning"?
I think it is great that they stand up for their beliefs. At the same time, I
think any group that involves itself in politics should not have a tax free
status! The LDS Church should have lost their status a long time ago!
Sorry atheists - I'm on the Notre Dame/Catholic band wagon on this one. We
need someone to shutdown this dictatorship.
Sorry, religious zealots. You can be on Notre Dame's side; we will be on
the side of equality, civility, truth and reason.
Doug Robinson, DesNews 9/20/13: "Forbes magazine recently published a list
of college football’s biggest moneymakers. Texas ranks No. 1... Then came
Notre Dame... These aren’t schools; they are big corporations with schools
attached."When it comes to religious liberty issues, the
University of Notre Dame as a Catholic-owned institution would like you to think
it is a quiet campus of pious seminarians learning catechism and how to serve
Mass and that the contraceptive mandate of ACA would be a major obstacle to its
function. This is hardly the case. UND, as Robinson observes, is largely
secular and corporate in its mission.Tell me, other than the
watchful officiating of "Touchdown Jesus" on the side of the Hesburgh
Library, is there any meaningful difference between a concession stand worker or
custodian at Notre Dame Stadium and one at the state-owned Ross-Ade Stadium at
Purdue University, 90 miles to the south? It's not like the sodas in South
Bend are brewed from holy water. Why should the workers have different employee
"Truth" and "reason" and "civility" have nothing to do
with forcing people to do things they find morally abhorrent.Employment contracts are freely entered into, and the government has no
business forcing the employer to give all kinds of objectionable items to the
employee as part of such contracts.Imagine if the administration
started requiring employers to give their employees five pounds of steak a week,
or ten gallons of gasoline. Would you be here saying vegetarians and
environmentalists who don't want to give these things to their employees
have no right to follow their conscience as employers? Or would you admit that
those employers and their prospective employees should have the freedom to enter
into contracts based on normal wages, and that whoever wants steak or gasoline
should either look elsewhere for employers who gave such freebies or use their
wages to buy it?Those requirements are no more ridiculous than the
birth control mandate. And while you seem to think that religious motivations
are somehow less valid in the public sphere than all others, on the contrary,
the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion.
Proud of our Catholic friends, but you guys need to get of subsides. This makes
it difficult on government mandates.
"Sorry, religious zealots. You can be on Notre Dame's side; we will be
on the side of equality, civility, truth and reason."You forgot
to list patriotism, enlightenment, and a host of other cardinal virtues.That being said, your self-rigtheous post is hilarious. Go Irish.
Since the employees PAY the premiums for the insurance plan, THEY should be the
ones to decide whether the plan they want offers what THEY need; not the
religious bigotries of their employers.
I support Notre Dame in this. Obama is carefully dismantling our religious
freedom. Hilary will pick up where he leaves off.
"Since the employees PAY the premiums for the insurance plan, THEY should be
the ones to decide whether the plan they want offers what THEY need; not the
religious bigotries of their employers."Employees aren't
the only ones paying for the insurance plans. In most cases, they pay one half
to a third of the costs. If you don't like the "religious
bigotries" of your employer, get a clue - find an employer whose ethical
standards match your own. If you go to work for a church, you probably know
what their standards are. Don't act shocked or indignant when they
won't change to match your interests.
Hutterite,No employers are individuals or people? Wow, talk about
confusion.Another perspective, FTI guess the 1st amendment
means nothing to you?The Catholic church not paying for
contraceptives in NO way prevents ANYONE’s family planning. To say it
does is absolutely ludicrous.Rflash,Please tell us how
protecting religious rights is involvement in politics.A
scientist,Truth and equality? CIVILITY and reason? From those ATTCKING
Notre Dame? Oh please, you’ve got me laughing so hard my sides ache.Ranch,The employERS pay the majority of the premiums. And they
are plans administered by ND. For the employee to buy it, ND has to offer it,
which violates their 1st amendment rights.
lost in DCNotre Dame's constitional rights are in no way restricted
according the 1st amendment. They are free to excercise in telling any of their
members or employees that they believe that the use of birth control is immoral.
But they are not immune from the ACA based upon their religous beliefs. If the
courts ruled that they are they would be "respecting an establishment of
religon". Please read the 1st amendment. "United States
Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of
religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of
speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to
peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of
FT: You tell others to read the First Amendment, but it seems plain that
you've never understood it yourself.The First Amendment
protects the exercise of religion, not just speech about religion. To claim
speech is the only protected form of religious exercise is absurd and would
reduce that clause to a redundancy."Respecting" here means
the same as "concerning," i.e. "about." "Establishment"
is not a synonym of "organization" - to establish a religion is to make
it the national church, the official state religion. "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion" simply means no laws creating
an official religion. Allowing people free exercise is not establishing a state
religion; nor does it even fall under the broad activist reading of that clause
which established the "Lemon test."Your readings of these
clauses are totally at variance with the English language as used in the 18th
century, with innumerable actions taken by the Founders and statesmen throughout
our nation's history, and with all Constitutional case law.
@lost in DC;Regardless whether or not the employer pays a portion of
the cost; the EMPLOYEE is also paying; therefore THEY, not their employer,
should decide what THEIR health needs are and how they are to be met.
As Ranch points out, regardless whether or not the employer pays for part of the
insurance premium... indeed, unlike many other civilized countries, in the U.S.,
medical insurance benefits are provided to employees as part of their
compensation package. As such, putting religiously-based limits on how that
compensation can be used would be akin to the owners of Hobby Lobby refusing to
pay employees any funds that they MIGHT be tempted to use on drinking alcohol,
or coveting their neighbors ox, or whatever other "sins" the owners want
to clear out of their employees' lives.I have always thought
religion was a facilitator of people (usually men) becoming control freaks, but
this issue proves my suspicion in spades!Believers, quit trying to
control other people's lives!
Scientist, you apparently don't bother reading any of the comments
you're replying to, and this is nothing "akin" to trying to limit
how other people spend the wages you give them. ND not giving
employees birth control as a freebie is no more a matter of "trying to
control other people's lives" than is PETA's failure to give its
employees five pounds of free steak per week. In either case, if the employee
wants that, they're free to spend their wages on it rather than demand it
directly from their employer.On the contrary, you and those like you
are the ones trying to control other people's lives by limiting their
ability to freely enter into mutually agreed contracts.
Prodicus-Your interpretation of the 1st amendment is not supported by any
established rulings by the courts. Notre Dame will lose in court as many other
organizations with similar arguments have in the past. They can excercise their
religous beliefs and practices as long as they are within the boundaries of our
established, upheld laws. Just saying, they're going to lose their
argument based upon the court's previous rulings of constitional rights.
OK my liberal friends I have a legitimate question for you.If
Planned Parenthood, for example, was required to pay for counseling that aided
in a person with gay tendencies to become straight under the ACA would you be
presenting the same arguments that you are now?
"Believers, quit trying to control other people's lives!Yes, yes, we should leave these decisions to experts like Obama. Or those
myopic twits in Congress. I love the sense of entitlement shared on
this thread. Again, to restate the obvious, if you do not like the compensation
package provided by your employer, then find work someplace else. I'm sure
your employer will not have much difficulty in replacing you.
Conservatives keep arguing the world is flat when it's been proven round.
The courts have already established that religon cannot be used as an excuse to
avoid laws that have been upheld as constitionally sound. Notre Dame will not
be allowed to withhold birth control from it's policies on the grounds that
it violates their 1st amendment of freedom of religon. They would have more
success citing economic hardships. Where as the ACA was upheld on a small
majority (5-4) if this case goes to the Supreme Court the outcome will be even
worse for opponents of the law.
Live From the Swamp wrote:"if you do not like the compensation
package provided by your employer, then find work someplace else."Likewise, if you don't like the law of the land, then find someplace else
to live. Try Iraq!Prodicus wrote:"ND not giving
employees birth control as a freebie is no more a matter of "trying to
control other people's lives" than is PETA's failure to give its
employees five pounds of free steak per week."If an employer
does offer free steak as part of compensation, then it is certain they must
follow the laws governing proper handling, packaging, and distribution of steak.
And if it is part of compensation, then it is not "free", is it.Nobody is demanding anything from employers other than that they follow
the law. And in the same spirit as the Swamp articulated above, if an employer
does not like to comply with the law governing health and medical insurance,
then DON'T OFFER IT!See how that goes.But if you
are going to provide insurance benefits, you must do so in compliance with the
1978 wrote:"If Planned Parenthood, for example, was required to
pay for counseling that aided in a person with gay tendencies to become straight
under the ACA would you be presenting the same arguments that you are
now?"IF the recognized, legitimate mental health authorities in
this country agreed that such "conversion therapies" were effective
(which they are not), and should be covered by medical/health insurance plans,
then SURE, I would fully support that.Bluff called.Next.
I agree that birth control should be made available to those who choose to use
it to prevent having children. There are also medical reasons for some women to
use bc pills one is to regulate their cycles to having easier cycles. Let the
parishners choose for themself. A lot of them already are using natural family
planning and there is no garentee that it works any more than a women who can
get pregnant because she missed just one pill.
"IF the recognized, legitimate mental health authorities in this country
agreed that such "conversion therapies" were effective (which they are
not), and should be covered by medical/health insurance plans, then SURE, I
would fully support that."I appreciate your consistency. I
somehow feel like your position would be in the minority among those with your
point of view.It would come as a great shock to my high school
friend who went through that process that it is not effective. He was by all
accounts gay (and he should know) and is now happily married with six children
and minimal to no gay desires.Your bluff has been called as well.
Have a great day.
RanchYou bring up a good point. The employee also should have say.
They pay part of the premium. But unfortunately the ACA has taken away some of
that control for the employee too. Two cases to demonstrate. Case 1: Active
believing Catholic (who believes just like Notre Dame does on this issue)
working at Notre Dame. Case 2: Homosexual man working for himself.In Case 1's scenario. point the Catholic employee agrees with the
university's position and also doesn't want his or her money going to
pay for others to use condoms, birth control, etc. But she or he can't
find a policy that doesn't force it, because of the ACA. He or she can not
choose to not support this financially (even if it's pennies on the hundred
of dollars).Case 2. Homosexual man. Wants to find a policy that
doesn't have maternity costs part of it. Policies with these are much more
expensive. But now he can't. He has to pay, out of his control now, for
benefits in a policy that he'll never use.