Quantcast

Comments about ‘Government argues birth control mandate doesn't violate religious freedom’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 3 2014 6:40 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
10CC
Bountiful, UT

So, what is to prevent a Hindu employer objecting to pay for cancer treatment? Hindus believe one's lot in life is related to how one behaved in a previous life, and easing the suffering of cancer patients, even children, might be construed as interfering with some kind of Universal Karma and an atonement that should be paid for sins in a previous life.

Seventh Day Adventists may object for paying for emergency surgery for car accident victims, since they believe blood transfusions should be avoided.

Some parents in Wisconsin were convicted of homicide because they refused to have their diabetic child treated, opting for prayer instead. Isn't this religious persecution? Where's the outrage among religious liberty advocates on this issue?

At some point society needs to draw the line, like in the cases of snake handler parents who get their children bit by poisonous snakes...you know, to help them develop faith, or something.

5Tina
American Fork, UT

In response to 10 CC of bountiful In most of your arguements the result would most likely be death or serious harm to someone else. Individual rights end with harming someone else. I agree we do have to draw a line, but I believe you are saying that they the nuns should have to cover contraceptives and I don't believe that is the right line to draw.

In the case of taking a morning after pill you ensure you are killing/ causing harm to someone else the unborn fetus in the view of the religious people like the nuns in the article. Thus this legislation does persecute their religious views. So by your implied reasoning up above I could argue in behalf of the nuns not having to cover a morning after pill because it harms someone else. Then you may say why object to the other contraceptives that don't harm fetus'.

Well can you say that almost every time a women doesn't take a contracptive it results in death or serious harm, no. Thus objecting to paying for covering contraceptives is nothing like the above examples you gave.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:5Tina

Birth control pills are used to treat a variety of conditions, not just pregnancy prevention. And in some caes, pregnancy could threaten the health or life of a woman.
The morning-after pill prevents ovulation, it is not an abortifacient.
The Catholic Health Assoc which represents 620 Catholic hospitals and 1400 nursing homes finds the religious accomodations in Obamacare acceptable.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

While employers have every right to adhere to their own religious restrictions. They ought not attempt to impose these restrictions on their employees.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Re 5Tina

You are partially correct. Some contraceptives do kill a fertilized egg. However since the Catholic Church opposes ALL contraception I presume these nuns are trying to disallow ALL contraceptives in their insurance plan. Not just the kind that kills human life in its earliest form. If so what the nuns are trying to do is wrong. They are trying to impose their particular religious restrictions on their employees.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'But signing a government certification form that effectively shifts the mandate's obligations onto a third-party would still violate the conscience rights of the nuns, whose Catholic beliefs prohibit facilitating the use of any form of artificial birth control, sterilization or abortion, their attorney said.'

1) If their beliefs were valid, they would not have to look for legal exceptions to laws. i.e. People 'should not' need birth control.

We all know this is not the case.

2) I think 10CC is right on point. The 'slippery slope' argument is used on many things, why not this one? Why is one religious exception (birth control) 'not' as valid as another? (snake handling)

Both, are based on belief.

Not facts.

And last, what happens when one belief, contradicts another? i.e. a woman 'believes' that God wants her to have birth control, and another does not?

America, is not a theocracy.

Your beliefs, should never dictate the actions and lives of other people.

Don't believe in birth control? You have ever right to not use it.

Do not, pretend that belief, should apply to anyone but yourself.

Otherwise, whatever you are going to eat today, violates my belief system.

New to Utah
PAYSON, UT

Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor are correct in challenging ACA (ObamaCare). This totally
partisan legislation is so convoluted with so many exceptions and political payoffs its literally
impossible to understand.Thankyou Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters for fighting for your rights.

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

One of many examples of the kind of clash between governmental intrusion and the exercise of freedom that we are destined to see anytime people who believe they have the right and ability to dictate what others are allowed and/or forced to do, are voted into power. Because the power is **always**, ultimately, with the people, the remedy, when needed, is the same. VOTE!

Assuming the voting process isn't rigged and actually reflects the will of the majority, the real problem, of course, is for those in the minority who are on the short side of the governmental compulsion game.

They are the ones punished for not complying with the "law", even if, as in this case, it is a compliance violation caused by the dictates of their own conscience. As opposed to, say, violations of more "traditional" laws which are meant to constrain people from violating the rights of other. Such as, for example, laws governing actions produced by the dictates of someone's sexual appetites, or compulsion to steal or burn down property, or assault somebody, etc.

Ultimately, we, the people, decide. Choose wisely.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

This nothing more than the federal government beating up on a group of helpless nuns! Some of you people have no concept of religious freedom. You demand people keep their religions out of your government but have no problem forcing your government into people's religions! Leave these poor defenseless nuns alone! Stop bullying people!

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@10cc:
7th Day Adventists don't object to blood transfusions. Where are you getting your information from? With regards to the rest of the cases you are bringing up, I think that you've got a pile of prejudices that you are talking from.

With regards to the government's position that "that the law does not violate the religious freedom of a group of nuns challenging the mandate."
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Tekakaromatagi:

Correction noted on the 7th Day Adventists and blood transfusions. It's the Jehovah's Witnesses who are opposed to blood transfusions.

My other examples are valid. I work with many Indians, and while India is wrestling with the immorality of their caste system, one of the justifications is sin, or lessons not learned, in previous lives. It is a common perception that the "untouchable" caste are in their predicament for a reason, which is misbehavior in previous lives.

Our nation has a long history of emphasizing individual and religious freedom, often to the detriment of... interestingly enough... individuals.

Examples include the snake handlers, and whether the parents can subject their children to this kind of risk, and the fascinating precedent of the first child abuse cases being tried using animal cruelty laws, since the prevailing attitude was whatever happens inside of a family is that family's business, and nobody else's.

All this uproar about these nuns not wanting to pay for contraceptives - even though there's an accommodation that makes it so they don't have to - is just a chance for people to take a shot at Obama, that's all.

billster36
Nies, MI

If a for profit company like Hobby Lobby can argue that providing birth control coverage in it's insurance violates it's religious beliefs, then is it not denying religious freedom to it's employees by forcing those who want birth control to sign on to another form of insurance? It could be argued that by taking this step they are imposing their own religious values on their employees.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

If a law were passed forcing employers to engage in religious activity - leftists would be appalled, yet when government makes up a phony mandate (that can be modified without changing the law) forcing employers to violate their religious beliefs, leftist see no problem
Furthermore - simply because your employer does not pay for something that has no relationship to your job - does not mean you cannot easily get it yourself

This is why I have no respect for the innately hypocritical left

Truthseeker
it matters not one iota whether some Catholics see the mandate as being ok - it is up to individual people to determine their level of devotion - NOT YOURS, or Obamas or the government
Your comment illustrates precisely why I distrust leftists

TripleCrown
Santa Ana, CA

The whole issue of whether or not someone should have the freedom to utilize artificial conception prevention or termination methods would have remained a separate issue had all 3 braches of the Federal Government not insisted that government should interpose itself between healthcare services and patients and that all citizens should be FORCED to pay for someone else's healthcare services.

Oatmeal
Woods Cross, UT

Many are arguing that individual or collective beliefs "should never dictate the actions and lives of other people." Oh really? The belief of many Americans that we should extend healthcare benefits to as many Americans as possible seems noble. But in doing so, should the government force religious groups and individuals to violate their consciences? Should anyone be coerced to pay for a social program which violates their most deeply held beliefs?

ulvegaard
Medical Lake, Washington

Though we have great admiration for the basic concept of the proposed reasons behind the ACA, from the beginning, the methods were outrageous.

Supposedly the idea was to make sure that everyone in the country had access to health care. Truly, a noble cause. So if this was indeed the underlying intent, why then not simply impose a miniscule tax on all health insurance that would help cover expenses for those who couldn't afford it --- far less costly than the current outcome of sky rocketing insurance premiums.

Instead, it has been thousands of pages of regulations which have done more to deny coverage than to expand it. If people want birth control, let them purchase it, or ask for help to do so, rather than to force everyone to take on coverage and penalties if they don't.

desert
Potsdam, 00

Multiplying by 10 or 100 future rulings and laws, when people need to sign off in order not to get a million fee ?

How soon we have clerks of churches and church services go to jail ?
Pretty soon, if not within some years.

Religion in America ? Going to fight government more often ? I bet your pardon !
Something very wrong here, and readers need to get up on more thinking.
Here comes the camel and the tent in the desert story.

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

Oh, "the government said so, therefore it must be true?'

Remember, this is the same government that repeatedly lied to us claiming "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance."

I will defer to the interpretation of religious issues by leaders in the religions which are affected.

ray vaughn
Ogden, UT

None of the employees covered by a health plan offering birth control pills are being forced to order or take the pills. It is disengenous for a group of nuns, celibate by choice, to force everyone else under their plan to forgo birth control. health plans offered by the LDS church and its associated business offer addictioin treatment. yet the LDS churchs tenets prohibit alcohol and drug use. Should the involved business refuse to offer addictioin treatment merely because they prohibit using alcohol and drugs?

Aunt Sue
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

If the federal government was mandating that all employers had to pay for meals eaten by employees, vegetarian employers would be forced to pay for their employees' burgers and steaks. You would see them heading to the courts to cry NOOOOOO.

to comment

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