If any individual wants birth control pills, buy them yourself! Problem solved!
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.
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.
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.
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
re: MountanmanI think they cost something like $9 for a month supply
without insurance. You don't think that's too much?
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
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
Beautifully stated Banderson.
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.
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.
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.
If those who want others to pay for their birth control stopped buying
soda's they could afford their own.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Yea, let's shoot down responsible reproduction. Makes perfect sense.
"...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!
Pay for your own choices. That's what it comes down to. If you want to be
able to have sex and avoid having children then you should buy your own birth
control. Part of the reason no one can have an intelligent conversation about
these topics is because people are forced onto one of two sides instead of
people acknowledging that everyone has different opinions and for different
reasons. I think a lot of people simply prefer for people to be responsible for
their own actions. Learn the difference between a right and a priviledge. You
have to earn priviledges by showing that you can act responsibly and are willing
to accept the consequences of your actions.
procuradorfiscalYour statement that "liberal political
hacks" don't understand that real people have consciences seems to
completely ignore some with liberal beliefs that all children are entitled to
quality education, food and healthcare and that people in this country
shouldn't be starving or dying of perfectly curable diseases just because
they don't have a good job or health insurance. Democrats and Republicans
are not all correct or all wrong and accusing liberals of being without
conscience is not accurate. Sometimes consciences are different. If you believe
in ultimate truth, as I do, some specific ideas are abhorrently wrong. Abortion
is one of these. But those who disagree may be looking at things differently and
their conscience may say otherwise. As moral people, we are told to vote
according to our consciences. I will continue to fight against abortion except
when the mother's life is in danger, but I will also continue to support
safety net programs because they are morally the right thing to do according to
my moral compass. Denigrating liberals is of no value. We are all better off
discussing issues instead of liberals or conservatives.
If there were a church that was opposed to war (and some of them are) do we get
to pay less taxes to avoid paying for wars because of moral beliefs? Nope. Why
should healthcare be any different? It's not anyone is forcing you to use
birth control and churches themselves have exemptions. @procuradorfiscal"They just don't understand that real
people have a conscience."Who is "real people"? Most
Catholics use birth control so do they not count? Your church allows for birth
control use so do they not count? My side supports universal healthcare to
everyone based on what we consider to be a matter of conscience but obviously
you think we don't count. @banderson and John20000I
sort of assumed pro-life advocates were interested in reducing the frequency of
An adult child can now be insured up to 26 even if they are married. So that
means a woman who is married, supporting her husband through school, can not
have access for insurance paid birth control. In other words the issue is not so
black and white. The Obama may be have their 'final' offer on the
table but they compromised and moved their position to be more appealing to
religions. This letter shows no such compromising attitude. Again considering
the complexity of the issues, it's easy to show how one set of religious
principles can be violated by rigid adherence to another set of principles.
this is a very frustrating subject, when I was in the Child Bearing Age, the
best way to avoid getting prgnant was to sleep alone. If you were married, then
use the calendar, and have sex on the days that you were likely not to get
prgnant. When you were a teenager, Parents had a little more control and rules
of conduct for their child and Morals were much higher A little common sens
could solve the problem, and parents using a little more leadership roll with
their children, could put this all behind us. Doctors an pill Pushers might not
like it, But noone would be committing legal murder.
This group of religious leaders misses the mark right off the bat when they call
themselves "informed" in the first sentence of the letter. The supposed
rights of which they speak do not exist, which is why they have and will lose in
court on this subject matter.Chalk this up as another social policy
upon which our Church has not only taken the losing side of the argument but
also aligned itself against actual rights recognized under the COTUS. Indeed,
such short-sightedness and poorly informed choices by leadership only provides
fodder to people who oppose the LDS faith.
I consider birth control money well spent next to have to pay the costs (in real
dollars or societal consequences) associated with millions of unwanted
children.And if Repubs don’t like the mandate, let’s
start a “national charity” where birth control is given out free to
anyone who cannot afford it. Now that’s a 10% tithing program
I can get behind!
Northeast Kingdom: How are these religious groups forcing their beliefs on
anybody? They aren't saying their employees can't use birth control.
All they are saying is they shouldn't have to pay for it. Not even close
to apples to apples. More like apples to watermelon!
This is just the tip of the iceberg.There will many more fights against this
Obama-nation we find ourselves in. The Obama administration is as close to a
full blown communist state - at least that is the desired direction. If people
want freedom - a bill of rights - and liberty they are going to have to fight
Barack and his progressive - communist - atheists every step of the way.
Russell Howes: Absolutely. If you want a blood transfusion you should not expect
the JWs to pay for it.
It's nothing short of criminal for any organisation to fail to support
birth control to the fullest yet decry any abortion. The empowerment of women is
the single greatest means of improving life for all mankind, anywhere on earth.
Yet religion, despite all it's claims about charity and helping the poor,
refuses to do this lest it lead to women taking control of their own
reproductive cycles. Churchy types always want to tell you when and with whom to
have sex, it seems. Seriously let's start talking about sex like adults,
and start acting like we actually want to prevent abortions short of just trying
more legislative tricks.
This issue affects married women as well. Married women use contraceptives--not
just "loose" college co-eds. If no employer is required to
pay for contraceptive coverage--only to make available to their employees health
plans which include contraceptive coverage what is the issue? Are
we against allowing contraceptive coverage because "money is fungible? ie,
even though no employer is required to PAY for the contraceptive coverage, the
fact that money is interchangeable we can't allow it? That
"money is fungible" can be applied to churches as well. For
example, when churches collect "tithes" they might say "our tithes
don't go for a fancy car for the Priest or tithes don't go for
shopping malls and luxury housing" but under the "money is fungible"
concept one could argue that "yes" tithes are going for fancy cars and
@Russell HowesYes, the employer should be able to decide not to cover
blood transfusions. I am of the particular belief that it is not a companies
responsibility to provide health insurance. How in the world did it become so?
It's a benefit and the company should be able to decide what benefits to
give. It's a form of compensation. Jared from CT is correct.
Having seemingly withdrawn from the battle over same-sex marriage the LDS Church
is drawing its line in the sand in regards to religious freedom. I don't
think that the LDS Church is concerned about birth control as much as they are
about government dictating churches' actions. I also believe that there is
an alliance building aspect to this letter and that the LDS Church is seeking to
make friends in anticipation of the possible attack on religious freedom re
same-sex marriage. The wagons are circling.
The LDS Church has gone way too far in signing on to this right-wing political
(and ridiculous) letter and I, as a member, am offended and ashamed by it.
So why do health insurance have to furnish contraceptives. We bought our own
throughout our married life. We seem to get closer to a socialistic state
The issue is not birth control. The fundamental question is whether or not a
company can enforce the religious beliefs of its CEO on its employees. Imagine
that your wife is pregnant. There are issues with the fetus, but not to worry,
there are drugs that can be prescribed to save that baby. However, the CEO of
your company just happens to be Muslim. Those drugs just happen to violate some
portion of Sharia Law as he has interpreted it. If you pay out of pocket the
drugs are extremely expensive. Of course you will mortgage your home and run
through all your credit doing anything to save your child. Or your company could
just have an insurance plan that happens to cover the needed medications and
treatment that your wife needs instead of the select portions approved by your
CEO's religion. With this letter, the LDS Church is stating that Sharia Law
may be imposed on employees if the president of the company deems it and the
government can do nothing about it.
Through taxes, individuals and organizations see lots of money spent in ways
that make us uncomfortable. I'm still glad, for example, that as a young
man I didn't have to directly participate in the needless killing of 2
million Vietnamese civilians, although my taxes did support that.That's why Mark Silk is right to refer to this letter as "right-wing
flapping."By the way, there is plenty of evidence in the Bible
that God authorizes the termination of unborn life in various circumstances.
god authorizes Unborn killings of unborn....By Steve Warren!Steve,
Obama is not god, and Dreams of my Father is not the Bible.....and no god did
not authorize the killing of the unborn, ever!
Brain capitalist: The Church is not a for-profit organization, it is funded by
donations. It does not use its money in endeavors to make more money - it uses
it for public good. The tax exempt status that religions have it because of
that reason. They have the right to speak out on moral issues. LIFE is a moral
issue, not a state one.
Atl, Hutterite, and Tyler: No other program, government or otherwise, comes
close to chastity before marriage. That is as Pro-life as you can get. How
come no one supports that as a government program? It doesn't work? It
does for those who have believe in it. If one doesn't believe in it, then
he/she needs to accept the consequences of his/her choices. Not reality?
It's reality to those who believe in it. The statistics are
unquestionable. No one has ever gotten pregnant that was chaste! You'd
think that the liberals would get on board with something that has a perfect
record. But, of course, that is not what they want. It is much easier to
declare a 'war' on something then actually do something about it.
Being chaste is the only pro-life movement that makes sense. It actually works!
I don't live in a perfect world, I just live in one that makes more sense
because the principles don't change.
@1aggieWhat exactly offends you about it?I'm also
LDS and believe the Church is spot on with their support of this letter. The
Church is not saying it thinks abortion is wrong, because it has repeatedly said
that under certain circumstances abortion may be necessary. The simple fact is
that religious liberties are being trampled on in this country. You can't
force religious organizations to provide services that contradict the beliefs of
that organization.A great example of this is same-sex marriage --
can you imagine if the federal government mandated that all churches were
required to marry any couple, despite it being in direct contradiction to their
religious and moral teachings? Our nation has started on a path where we
sacrifice so much in the name of equality.The ironic thing is that
in the same-sex marriage debate, many people wanted separation of church and
state. When it comes to healthcare benefits, though, it seems there is no line
between church and state -- the "state" wants to mandate that the church
subordinates its beliefs in favor of something that directly contradicts the
church's teachings. That's a bad precedent.
@ Howard,"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, a Jehovah Witness should
not be required to provide health care coverage that conflicts with his/her
religious beliefs. An employee then has the freedom to determine if they want
to accept a business contract to work for a JW business because of the limited
health insurance. To me I'd consider this healthcare package useless and
I'd decide if I wanted to work for the JW owner or not--that is my
choice.This illustrates exactly why the government in the US should
not be in the health insurance business. Fundamentally, government mandated
health insurance is unconstitutional. (I know, the SCOTUS deemed the law
constitutional as a 'tax' and slid it under the commerce act, but
fundamentally it is unconstitutional and violates the bill of rights).
This imaginary "war on religion" has become overtly political and the
(supposedly politically neutral) Church is WRONG to step in here. Why has the Church not banded with the Christian Scientists against the
government who puts their members in jail when their children die of easily
treatable conditions? After all, it's not whether we agree with the
practice (of withholding medical treatment) or not, it's religious freedom
that's at issue here!
Tyler D,Religious freedom i.e...'The Church of the Lukumi
Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, was a case in which the Supreme Court.
The church would bring their practice of Santeria, which included the ritual
sacrifice of animals, into the area. Animal sacrifice is practiced at birth,
marriage, and death rites. It is also used for curing the sick and other annual
ceremonies. As a response to this, the city of Hialeah passed several ordinances
prohibiting animal sacrifice. The Church claimed that this violated their First
Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion.This decision
reaffirmed the standard set forth in Smith to determine whether a law violates
the freedom of individuals' to exercise their religions. In order to not
have to meet the compelling interest standard a law must be generally applicable
and neutral. The Court unanimously invalidated the city
ordinances that outlawed animal sacrifices.
@TRUTH: "god did not authorize the killing of the unborn, ever!"Wrong. In the Bible, we are told that God, through his prophets,
authorized the stoning to death of adulteress women, some of whom would have
been pregnant. In fact, some adulteress women were not found out until they
began to "show."Also, in Numbers 5: 17-31, priests
administer "bitter water" to abort the babies of women who were
"defiled."In other cases, Israel according to the Bible is
commanded by God to kill all people in certain villages, including some women
who would have been pregnant. In cases where the pregnancy is far along, they
are authorized to cut the unborn from the womb to make sure it does not
survive.I hope this has been helpful in your understanding of the
Bible, not every word of which I believe.
From the Letter:"Those who are not so opposed nevertheless resist the
mandate because they believe that it is an “encroachment on the conscience
of our fellow citizens.” They write: “Whether or not we agree with
the particular conscientious objection is beside the point."HmmmWhat about polygamy? Will we support the FLDS in its practice
of polygamy? ORWill we support Christian Scientist's
practice of using prayer instead of modern medicine for healing--including the
death of children from preventable diseases? Afterall, it's not about whether we agree or disagree with beliefs. It's
about govt encroachment on free practice of religion.
The claim that an employee is "deprived of choice" by employers that
don't provide insurance that covers contraception is false. The employee
can (a) purchase supplemental insurance, (b) purchase their own contraception,
(c) quit having sex, (d) find another job with an employer that provides their
desired insurance coverage, (e) quit working altogether and go on the dole, (f)
quit their job and start their own company where they are the boss and can
choose the insurance plans they provide to their employees, (g) go to work for
the government and have guaranteed job security, great benefits, bonuses in a
down economy, tyrannical power over citizens they are supposed to serve, and
attend lavish parties and conventions, or (h) end their own miserable existence
because they aren't getting "free" contraception, something that
most of the world doesn't get now, and that 99.999999999999999999% of
humanity has never had.What's next? Mandating abortion
coverage? Sex change operations? Plastic surgery? Liberty and the pursuit of
happiness (and our own violated constitution) demand that the government stop
manipulating the private sector.
@DN "Moderators"Please stop arbitrarily censoring opinions
that you disagree with!@Blue AZ CougThis is about
contraceptives not abortion. And your same-sex marriage example is a poor
example because your example has not happened (and will not happen other than in
the minds of delusional paranoids). Religious liberties are not being trampled
in this country, and the church does not have a dog in this fight since we
believe that contraception is fine.Joining in this right-wring
political stunt makes no logical sense and is just plain wrong.
@1aggieMy bad, you're right -- this is about contraceptives,
not abortion. However, my example using same-sex marriage is not a bad one (nor
is it all that far-fetched). I clearly said "what if" which implies it
has not happened. It's a hypothetical scenario.Just because
the church doesn't have a dog in this fight doesn't mean we just sit
on the sidelines and watch the federal government steamroll the beliefs of other
people (and cherry-pick their constitutional rights). Again, you can't
pass a law that forces a religious organization to subordinate its beliefs or
act in a manner that is in clear contradiction to those beliefs. I suppose the
only exception to that rule is when the religious beliefs are a clear harm to
society (such as the Branch Davidians), but that isn't the case here. As
the letter states, "the federal government has neither a compelling interest
nor the appropriate authority to coerce one citizen to fund or facilitate
specific lifestyle choices of another." The contraceptive clause is a
violation of First Amendment rights that allow for the free exercise of
@Blue AZ CougarYour same-sex example is equivalent to me saying
"what if" Sharia Law replaced our constitution. It could happen, but
it's a ridiculous example (as yours was) that does not further my
argument.How were the Branch Davidians clearly harming society? For
that matter, as Truthseeker points out, if we apply the logic of the Open
Letter, then our Church must be against the government incarcerating Christian
Scientists when they refuse medical treatment for their children. And certainly
we must be in support of the FLDS's practice of polygamy (as long as
everybody is of legal age)... they too are just following their religious
beliefs. Calling the use of contraception a "lifestyle
choice" is offensive and very right-wing radical thinking. Further, I
don't believe our Church looks at contraception as a "lifestyle" so
why would we sign on to such a letter?
Those who claim their "religious freedom" are the same ones most
oppressive and dissmissive of other's religious beliefs.Jesus
condemned the hypocrites. Perhaps those of the Christian persuasion would do
well to review their various hypocritical policies.One last note,
when did religion become big business?
@1978 & Blue AZ Cougar;When your church is suddenly forced to
marry MEMBERS that they feel are "unworthy" in their temples, then, and
only then, will you need to worry about GLBT couples forcing your churches to
marry them.@@procuradorfiscal;So the rest of us
aren't "real people"? Gee, who knew?@Gunner;Employees pay a premium, extracted from each and every paycheck. If you
don't believe you should pay for birth-control pills, look at it this way,
the EMPLOYEE is paying it out of a portion of their premium.It is
VERY hypocritical for these very same organizations to include viagra, cialis,
etc. in their health plans but not birth control. You'd think they WANT
men to have sex and WANT women to be forced to have children.@TRUTH;Actually, if you read the bible, God not only authorized
the killing of unborn babies, but babies, women and children as well.
Didn't he COMMAND Joshua to exterminate the Caananites when they invaded?
There were almost certainly pregnant women among those slaughtered.
This coalition really doesn't want religious liberty. They want to be able
to dictate the laws of the land through their religious views and perception of
morality. They should at least be honest about what they're trying to do.
Re: "By the way, there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that God
authorizes the termination of unborn life in various circumstances."Not in any Bible Christians would recognize.
@banderson"No other program, government or otherwise, comes close to
chastity before marriage. That is as Pro-life as you can get. "Two problems with that...1. A lot of people end up having sex anyway,
and typically it's unsafe sex.2. Over half of abortions are obtained
by women who already have at least one child, birth control is important in
marriage too, not just before it."No one has ever gotten
pregnant that was chaste! "Well... maybe one person... but
we'll leave Mary out of this.
@Blue AZ Cougar"A great example of this is same-sex marriage -- can
you imagine if the federal government mandated that all churches were required
to marry any couple, despite it being in direct contradiction to their religious
and moral teachings? "This birth control mandate has exceptions
for religious institutions. What this is more like is those cases of businesses
not wanting to provide cakes, flowers, or whatever for same-sex weddings. @Todd_i"This illustrates exactly why the government in the US
should not be in the health insurance business"Actually this is
why we need more involvement since gov't provided healthcare would
eliminate the arguing about employer provided healthcare.
There sure are a lot of cafeteria christians among us.
This is a very important fundamental question here. The churches are basically
asking, is it right for the government to force someone to pay for something
they find morally offensive? The answer is either "yes" or
"no". If it's "no", is a "government" still a
"government"?Right question to ask. Sadly, I don't
believe the churches will fully accept the right answer.
@RanchHandMy original comment was hypothetical. Go back and read it
again.@Bob A. BoheyI disagree. The intent of the letter is
pretty clear -- "don't tell us we have to do things contrary to what we
believe." That's a pretty clear message. The religious convictions
were in place long before this law was established, so it's not like these
churches are trying to "stick it" to the federal government just to be
annoying. The same way non-religious people want churches to stay out of
politics, religious people want politics to stay out of churches.
@Blue AZ CougarI respectfully agree to disagree with you as to the intent
of this letter/coalition.
@Blue AZ Cougar;I fail to understand how providing a health plan
that covers ALL the basic necessities can be construed as forcing a business to
go against its religious "convictions". You don't need to avail
yourself of the benefit even if it's provided, right?What these
organizations are doing is saying: "We don't approve of our EMPLOYEES
using birth control". The employee pays at least a portion of the cost of
the insurance plan; they should be allowed to choose between plans that provide
for THEIR needs, not just the "religious views" of their employers.Furthermore; it is hypocritical in the extreme for these organizations
to scream "our religious freedom is being violated" when they turn right
around and fight to enact laws that VIOLATE the religious freedom of other
Americans. Jesus, the guy these so-called "religous" organizations
claim to worship was an enemy of the hypocrite.
Re: "Who is "real people"? . . . My side supports universal
healthcare to everyone . . . ."Then, by all means, YOUR side
should give universal health care to everyone. But real people who disagree with
liberal, libertine definition of what constitutes "healthcare" should
not be forced to adopt it, even though it violates their conscience.When liberals force religious people to adopt and advance their liberal,
libertine agendas, that's religious oppression. And it's
Anti-American.Liberal "freedom" to force others to bend to
their will is not "freedom." It's liberal tyranny.Real
people understand that. Liberals don't.
@procuradorfiscal;"Real people" understand that just because
something is available they are free to choose not to partake of it.Fake people think that if it's there they simply MUST use it themselves.
Contraception is basic health care coverage. It’s flat out dishonest for
religious leaders in the coalition to claim their religious freedom is being
violated. Government never forced the Catholic Church to become an insurance
carrier. That was their choice. HHS, for its part, has made every reasonable
effort to accommodate religiously affiliated carriers.This bitter
and unnecessary fight dramatically illustrates why religious doctrine must never
be used to form the basis for public law.
re:atl134"Actually this is why we need more involvement since
gov't provided healthcare would eliminate the arguing about employer
provided healthcare."Good point! I have not seen a
single article in DN laying out the facts (from the law) of the contraceptive
coverage mandate.Quaker objections to military service and taxation
for military purposes are not contingent on the severity of particular violent
conflicts. The objection is a general one based on the incompatibility between
the violent nature of militarism and a faith commitment to honour the absolute
worth of every person. Are there "faith" tax code exemptions
for Quakers? According to the coalition letter there should be! The "coalition" letter signed last year by the Presiding Bishop
regarding same-sex marriage was full of misrepresentations. It is deeply
troubling and disappointing that the "good" name of the LDS Church
didn't require a higher level of accuracy and scrutiny (such as reading the
actual court case(s) cited in the coalition letter). This coalition
letter clearly demonstrates the U.S. LDS church is blindly becoming too
politically insular, too politically homogenous such that it will set aside its
distinctness without carefully examining all the implications.
@RanchHand"When your church is suddenly forced ..." I think your statement is more enlightening than you realize. Once the
Federal Govt. "forces" the Catholic Church to do something against its
beliefs the door to destroying religous liberty has been opened.Just
to be clear NO ONE in the Catholic Church hierarchy is "forcing" women
not to buy birth control. They just don't want to pay for it. This really
Ron Burgundy wrote:"There sure are a lot of cafeteria christians
among us."Yes, almost half as many as there are judgmental ones.
From the HHS law:"Guidelines such that group health plans
established or maintained by these religious employers (and group health
insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans) are EXEMPT from the
requirement to cover contraceptive services.The regulations proposed
that, in the case of an insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, the health insurance issuer providing
group health insurance coverage in connection with the plan would be
required to assume sole responsibility, independent of the eligible
organization and its plan, for providing contraceptive coverage to plan
participants and beneficiaries WITHOUT cost sharing, premium, fee, or other
charge to plan participants or beneficiaries OR to the ELIGIBLE
ORGANIZATION or its plan."
@1978 – “Just to be clear NO ONE in the Catholic Church hierarchy is
"forcing" women not to buy birth control. They just don't want to
pay for it. This really isn't complicated.”So how does
that work exactly? Insurance obtained through an employer is part of
an employee’s compensation (i.e., their earnings they can spend how they
see fit). The only reason we’re even talking about this is because of this
terrible and archaic WWII holdover whereby the tax code makes it considerably
cheaper to get insurance through work. So I’m trying to
connect the dots from employee’s insurance plans (i.e., compensation) to
“Catholic Church paying for it.” Please walk us through
this “really isn't complicated” maze.
@Tyler DThat is a fair question and I appreciate your insightful
comments as well. BTW I agree with you about the tax code and insurance through
employers.In my app. 30 year career I have worked for 4 different
companies. My wife requires a certain medical procedure every 4 to 5 years that
costs about $1500. One of the four companies I worked for did not cover this
procedure. I was then "free" to choose whether to work for them or
not.I chose to work for them but was given a higher base salary to
cover the cost. She had the procedure once when I was there and I paid for it
myself. I did not get upset and demand the company change its insurance policy.
I took care of it myself. To me that wasn't really complicated.
@1978 – “That is a fair question and I appreciate your insightful
comments as well.”Same to you including your civil
tone…Your honest and forthright answer (pay attention
folks… this is how it’s done) shines a light on the legitimate issue
at hand (government overreach) while exposing the illegitimate issue (religious
freedom) for what it is – a red herring meant to confuse and gain
sympathy.I agree it is a matter of freedom and I fully understand
your concerns about government overreach here. For me personally, this policy
does not trouble me in the least for two reasons – 1) birth control is
money well spent vs. the costs (real & social) of unwanted children, and 2)
since 99% of people (including 97% of Catholics) use birth control I think most
welcome having this paid for with relatively cheap pre-tax insurance dollars.As for this leading to tyranny (not your words, but many here have said
as much), I think we can risk the dictatorship on this one.Cheers…
ATl134: Liberty is about choice. Someone who has given up on the values of
persistence, self-discipline, and education doesn't understand choice.
Chastity is something that many people live by and they are filled with same
emotions, passions, and yearning, but know that they are human with capabilities
that far exceed the giving in of those emotions, passions, and yearnings.
Chastity is a choice that makes other choices possible. When humans make choices
that are wrong, government absolves the chooser of his/her decision, no matter
what it is. Therefore, it blunts one of the great learning tools of life. Those
who believe that they are governed by outside circumstances will never
understand the power of choice. Chastity is a choice, one that has a 100% track
record. Liberty comes from making correct choices! Government will never help
people make correct choices because it is amoral. Individuals, guided by
conscience and laws, are far superior than government. Government doesn't
understand chastity and would rather abort or intercede (contraception
mandates), rather than promoting best practices for welcoming a child into this
re:BandersenA much higher proportion of married than of
never-married women use a contraceptive method (79% vs. 39%). This is largely
because married women are more likely to be sexually active.Are you
recommending "chastity" during marriage? Or
"natural" (abstinence curing "fertile" times) birth control for
married couples with a 24% failure rate?
I can't understand why the LDS church would want to waste what small
political capital it has signing this red herring (thank you Tyler D) piece of
trash. Particularly when the church and its membership is not affected one
iota.And the letter they signed on to last year was even worse. It
was so full of inaccuracies that it was an embarrassment to all the signees.It seems to me that certain churches want to take advantage of free
government services, yet cry foul if asked to participate in a reasonable manner
in providing better healthcare for society. So fine I say, but the tax-exempt
status for all churches should be discontinued. Why should I, as a taxpayer,
have to pay for services such as policing and fire prevention for churches (who
use their tax-exempt funds to build more churches which require more public
services that I must then pay for)? Churches want to be free of all societal
constraints, so they should be free of government provided benefits as well.
Truthseeker,"....This coalition letter clearly demonstrates the
U.S. LDS church is blindly becoming too politically insular, too politically
century image of Mormons was that of an intemperate people who were defiant
toward civil authority. It brought much grief down on the Church. Mormon leaders
knew they had a serious image problem. They began to cultivate an image of
moderation. If today’s LDS anchoring in social and political conservatism
seems intractable, it’s largely because that’s the direction LDS
Church leaders began charting in the years following the Manifesto.That’s my minimalist read on how Mormons got from where they were to
where they are. A lot of scholars of Mormon history are sure to disagree.
Re: "Contraception is basic health care coverage."Well,
there you have it. Liberals have spoken. No further debate required.Move along. Nothing to see here."My way, or the
highway."That's liberal tolerance for you.
I scoff at all those commentors who think your Employer or your Government
(actually "we the people") OWES you contraception. If you start your own
company, do whatever you want, hire who you want, and offer the type of
insurance you want your employees to be able to have... but this MANDATE stuff
is ridiculous! The government is not a Dictator. if it becomes a dictator and
decides for you what is good and bad, and what is right and wrong, then our
FREEDOM is gone. No one is restricting the use of contraceptives - it's
just who pays for a person's CHOICE to buy them. The LDS Church sees the
SLIPPERY SLOPE that our government is jumping into and it does and will affect
Religious freedom, Personal freedom, and the health of our Society. See the
forest from the trees, your freedoms are being Removed with EACH NEW LAW
Congress passes. Every time you accept a "freebie", it costs you a
little more of your "freedom". No handout is free. There's no Free
@johnnylingo62You are free to scoff all you want, but many women and
many women healthcare professionals view this as a woman's health issue.
The health professional I am married to views it as such, and takes extreme
umbrage when men, and male dominated institutions (like the Catholic Church and
the LDS church), involve themselves in female health issues. Not the wisest
move, given that 50% of your target market is female, particularly when you
don't have a dog in the fight.
We LDS people are NOT forcing our anti gay marriage views on others. We are
avoiding, having gay marriage forced in our Temples, under
I cannot believe all of the pro-government commenters. Since when did the DN
forums become so overrun with G-men! No wonder Obama got re-elected, as horrible
as he is! The end must really be near, with so many people supporting the
obscenely corrupt federal government. What a sad day! One day, all of you
supporters of the totalitarian federal government will eat each and every one of
your words, and I won't rub it in, because I'm not that kind of guy.
But I will gently say, 'I told you so.'
killpack,Such strident comments detracts from your credibility.Just remember, the NSA is "watching". Do you want the contact
information for Mr. Snowden?