Quantcast

Comments about ‘Notre Dame sues over health care law's birth control mandate’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 3 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
djk
blue springs, MO

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

IMAPatriot2
PLEASANT GROVE, UT

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!

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Rights accrue to individuals first, and we need a health care system in place that puts people before employers.

Another Perspective
Bountiful, UT

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.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

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?

FT
salt lake city, UT

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"?

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

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!

Tom in CA
Vallejo, CA

Sorry atheists - I'm on the Notre Dame/Catholic band wagon on this one. We need someone to shutdown this dictatorship.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Sorry, religious zealots. You can be on Notre Dame's side; we will be on the side of equality, civility, truth and reason.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

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 benefit packages?

Prodicus
Provo, UT

"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.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Proud of our Catholic friends, but you guys need to get of subsides. This makes it difficult on government mandates.

Live From the Swamp
Holladay, UT

"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.

Ranch
Here, UT

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.

GreatScot
Eagle Mountain, UT

I support Notre Dame in this. Obama is carefully dismantling our religious freedom. Hilary will pick up where he leaves off.

Live From the Swamp
Holladay, UT

"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.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Hutterite,
No employers are individuals or people? Wow, talk about confusion.

Another perspective, FT
I 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.

FT
salt lake city, UT

lost in DC
Notre 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 grievances"

Prodicus
Provo, UT

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.

Ranch
Here, UT

@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.

to comment

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