Quantcast

Comments about ‘Coalition of religious groups signs open letter for religious liberty’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, July 8 2013 2:20 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mountanman
Hayden, ID

If any individual wants birth control pills, buy them yourself! Problem solved!

play by the rules
SOUTH JORDAN, UT

In my opinion the Church has been far too soft on the regime and it is good to see them standing up against the oppressors.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Belgium, the nation with the lowest abortion rate in the world has achieved that in part through their universal birth control coverage system. Funny how the Catholic church doesn't care about that so much since it's a gov't provided healthcare system rather than employer provided. Maybe we just need single payer.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "The letter comes four days after the Obama administration released its final offer to . . . allow nonprofits . . . to hire a third party to administer the benefit."

Or, in other words, its final offer is -- "my way or the highway."

So typical of liberal political hacks!

They just don't understand that real people have a conscience. That real people would rather offend liberals than offend God. And that real people understand that hiring someone to do what your conscience forbids, is the moral equivalent of doing it yourself.

They've clearly convinced themselves that everyone is as cynical and disingenuous as they are, so, if they just offer the right transparent political fig leaf, any opposition must clearly bend to their superior powers of reasoning.

And, of course, the corollary to that is -- any opposition that doesn't bend will be subject to attack by the IRS, the NSA, the DOJ, or some other wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party.

Russell Howes
Los Angeles, CA

So if a Jehovah's Witness employer refuses to pay for a health care plan that covers blood transfusions, is that acceptable because of his religious beliefs?

GiuseppeG
Murray, Utah

re: Mountanman

I think they cost something like $9 for a month supply without insurance. You don't think that's too much?

bandersen
Saint George, UT

ATL134: I'm always amazed at the Non-sequitors and comparisons between countries such as Belgium, or similar countries, to the United States in regards to a whole host of issues, including this most recent post about birth control coverage. It's kind of like comparing my neighbor's walk to get the mail from his mailbox to the fitness industry. Belgium only has 10 million people and without immigration would become extinct in a few generations. I would hardly consider them an example for anything, including the bearing of children.

Northeast Kingdom
Portland, OR

So let me get this right, religious groups don't want beliefs/laws forced on them (i.e. universal birth control coverage), but they have no problem forcing their beliefs/practices on others (i.e. banning same sex marriage). Granted it isn't an apples to apples comparison, but definitely food for thought.

play by the rules
SOUTH JORDAN, UT

Beautifully stated Banderson.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

I think it's a bad decision for a high level Church authority to endorse the letter. I don't think the Presiding Bishop would decide such a thing without the First Presidency's approval if not at their direction.

1978
Salt Lake City, UT

Same-sex marriage supporters claim that Catholics, Baptists, LDS members, etc. don't need to worry about being forced to perform same-sex marriages (or face the consequences) because we have a seperation of church and state.

Don't try and convince me. Convince your beloved president that the federal govt. can't dictate actions within churches that violate their deeply held religous beliefs.

brainoncapitalist
Orem, UT

As a corporation, the Church is a creation of the State and as such is subject to public policy. If the Church wants to avoid having to abide by public policy decisions that affect all corporations, they should rescind their 501(c)(3) status, which they mistakenly believe is the only way to be tax exempt and rely upon the FACT that churches are by their very nature, ALREADY tax exempt. This would also free them from being muzzled by the government and allow them to speak freely about any subject they wish.

MoJules
Florissant, MO

If those who want others to pay for their birth control stopped buying soda's they could afford their own.

John20000
Cedar Hills, UT

Belgium is 97% urban with 5% of the population attending any church. It is a country were "soft" drug use isn't prosecuted. It is the size of Hawaii with the population of Ohio. It is not a very good case study for the United States to follow.

Jared from CT
SOUTHBURY, CT

The entire idea that the gov can force employers to provide health insurance in the first place, and then force them to provide certain coverages, is outrageous. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves right now. Employers should be able to choose whether they will provide insurance to their employees. If I employ part-timers and want to compensate them with a "Cadillac" health plan, I sure as heck ought to be able to. If I have full-timers that work 60+ hours a week, and I don't want to compensate them with health insurance, I sure as heck shouldn't have to. And they don't have to work for me either, they can go elsewhere. And I ought to be able to pick the health insurance plan I want to provide, whether it has bare minimum coverages, or high deductibles, or covers birth control or not, or maternity, or whatever. The bottom line is that the gov needs to get its filthy politicized corrupt claws out of private enterprise, enable true liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and allow free market economics to work.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

As an LDS member this is extremely disturbing.
The Obama Administration has tried to work with religious groups to address their issues. For example, employers (who employ non-adherents) are NOT required to pay for contraceptives--only to allow access to plans which offer contraceptives.

What is the LDS church's goal here? Does the LDS church have restrictions on contraceptives? If they do it is news to me. To support other religions who do? Why? Why would we stop there? Why not defend religions which use hallucinogens or prayer to cure disease?

First and foremost, contraceptives save lives--women's lives, not just by preventing pregnancy but also reducing the risk of ovarian cancer and also in treating other conditions.
Use of contraceptives also reduce disease and abortion--saving the lives of the unborn.

Once upon a time the LDS Church marched to its own drummer. Now it appears they are foolishly jumping through hoops so they can be part of "the club," the "popular" group.

Shame

(BTW, I am an ovarian cancer survivor--who also worked for a Catholic Hospital which provided birth control coverage).

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

I have a good friend who was diagnosed with endometriosis. She spent more than a year in terrible, excruciating pain that finally ended in surgery. In the process, she lost her job (because she was always in pain) and her insurance. One of the many different treatments for endometriosis is birth control. There are about 27 different kinds that are prescribed and their costs vary. Amazingly no one blinked an eye last year when the Navy bought three new destroyers at a cost of $7 billion each, but asking an insurance company to cover birth control for a single, unmarried, celibate woman is seen as some kind of heresy. We will pay to kill someone far away, but we will not allow insurance to cover the health needs of the woman next door.
This is why I feel the way I do about Christians. This is also why I am an athiest.

jsf
Centerville, UT

So if a Jehovah's Witness employer refuses to pay for a health care plan that covers blood transfusions, is that acceptable because of his religious beliefs?

Yes.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Yea, let's shoot down responsible reproduction. Makes perfect sense.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

"...they are united against government requiring any faith or its followers to violate those teachings."

Why the misrepresentation? There is NO law anywhere, and never has been, that "requires any faith or its followers to violate those teachings." Individuals are free to choose to use contraception or not -- except when they are employed by a company or organization that tries to control the private lives of their employees! Then there are many employees who have been deprived of the choice because their bosses and owners want totalitarian control over not just their professional/work lives, but their private lives as well!

This is yet another example of the LDS Church jumping on the ["religious freedom"] bandwagon, only to find itself on the wrong side of history... again!

to comment

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