Comments about ‘Stay on contraception mandate is a good decision’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 10 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

There are those who are demanding that we change the definition of "marriage" to include a definition given us by 2.5% of the population to include same-sex couples. That very small minority tells us that the needs of a minority must be accommodated by the majority; but, when the question is about birth control and another minority (those who actually believe in God and actually try to live his doctrine) demand that their religious doctrine be left undefiled by the Federal Government, the government tells us that they and they alone know what is "good and necessary" and that God cannot be cited as being relevant when it comes to Federal decrees.

So which is it? Can a 2.5% minority rewrite the definition of "marriage" while all religious establishments are told that the 1st Amendment guarantee that the Congress will make no law pertaining to an establishment of religion is no longer valid because Obama has said so?

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

This is a highly misleading editorial. The group that filed the suit in this case is a religious group that already is exempt from the contraception mandate. All they have to do is fill out a form to get their exemption. They are claiming that forcing them to fill out this form violates their religious freedom.

Can an employer who is a Jehova's Witness provide insurance to his employees that refuses to cover blood transfusions since that is against his religion?

Can an employer who is a Christian Scientist provide insurance that refuses to cover standard medical care and only covers faith-based care?

This is a more complex issue than this piece makes it seem.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

Gay people may be a minority, but they still outnumber Mormons. Do you really want to go down that path, Mike?

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

The law is very clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

That guarantee covers contraceptives. It covers transfusions. It covers anything and all things dictated by the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot and must not make any law pertaining to an establishment of religion. Period.

It's time that Americans dusted off their copies of the Constitution and started to stand for it instead of making excuses for unlawful and illegal government intrusion into our lives. We, the People, hold all rights. Only those rights that we have delegated to the Government can be abridged. Either we stand firm on that principle or we let "royalty" dictate to us what we will do. If that is the case, those who fought the Revolutionary War died in vain and all those who fought in every other war also died in vain. If we cannot stand firm for the founding principles, we don't deserve to be free. We deserve to become pawns to a "king" who will tell us what "rights" we have.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

KJB1,

"Gay people" have no special protection under the Constitution. Not one word in the Constitution offers "special" rights because of the way people "feel" about themselves. Gay people have the same rights as non-gay people. Their "feelings" are not protected by the 14th Amendment. They are classified as human beings with bodies. Their bodies are treated equally with every other "body" in America. If they want to marry someone, they are free to marry anyone whose "body" is not the same as their own, regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of national origin. They cannot argue that "feelings" must be accounted for unless they are willing demand equal pay for everyone who "feels" that the 14th Amendment guarantees him equal pay, equal hours, equal housing, equal education, equal trips to the golf course, and equal dining privileges as the President.

The Constitution explicitly protects establishments of religion. It does not protect "feelings".

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I think we should force ALL conservatives and all religious people to do whatever the liberals in our society want.

---

I know that sounds silly... but it's what some on the left think (maybe not that directly).

The thing is... it wasn't long ago (Reagan-Clinton era) when that the left was continually complaining about their conspiracy theories that the "religious right" was forcing THEIR version of "morality" on the left.

But when the Left forces their morality on people... it just seems so much more acceptable to these people when they mandate (by law) that you accept their morality (no exceptions for your religious beliefs).

---

I personally think the exception is a good thing. They aren't PREVENTING anybody from getting contraception. Nobody's preventing anything. You may have to pay for it. But many people think it's worth it and have doing this for a long time (paying for their own contraception).

Some things we should just buy for ourselves if we want them (not force someone else to pay for it).

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"Government regulations should never require Americans to go against their consciences where their faith is concerned."

Really?

Therefore:

Christian Science parents should not be prosecuted when their children die from untreated illness and disease.

Polygamy should become legal.

Schools and places of employment should be required to provide space and time for Muslims to pray and Sharia law to become legal.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"Government regulations should never require Americans to go against their consciences where their faith is concerned."

Really?

Therefore:

Christian Science parents should not be prosecuted when their children die from untreated illness and disease.

Polygamy should become legal.

Schools and places of employment should be required to provide space and time for Muslims to pray and Sharia law to become legal.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

In the interest of preserving individual liberty, which does and must trump religious liberty (tyranny), employers should not have a say in the health care provided to their staff just because it doesn't meet their religious ideas.
Cases like this are a good argument for single payer health care; it relieves employers of a huge burden, and also the opportunity to impose their beliefs on others.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Mike Richards – “If they want to marry someone, they are free to marry anyone whose "body" is not the same as their own, regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of national origin.”

I always enjoy your lectures on the Constitution… I learn a lot (mostly about why our brilliant founders created such a vague document – i.e., so we the people could work out most of the details within the framework democratically).

Anyway… you lost me on the quote above though. Tell me again why I find your stipulation (“whose "body" is not the same as their own”) in the Constitution?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

@Tyler D,

Let's review what the Constitution says about "gays", "homosexuals", and "same-sex marriage". That's right, it says nothing.

Let's review what the 14th Amendment says: ". . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What is a "person"? Is it a "body" or is it a body's "feelings"? A doctor can be consulted if there is any question about your sex or you can look at your driver's license. Your driver's license does list the sex that you "feel" that you have, but the sex a doctor could validate.

Let's review what the Supreme Court said when it struck down DOMA: "(a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States."

Let's review how the State of Utah handled its responsibility to define "marriage": "Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

The Deseret News is particularly specious with this editorial. NO law should EVER interfere with religious liberty? Are you serious? Do you really mean this? So when the Laffertys' sincere religious conviction that they should cut their neighbors'throats is disallowed, is that an unacceptable infringement of their religious liberty? Deseret News' reasoning here is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

"why" in my last sentence should have been "where."

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Hutterite,

Re: "impose their beliefs on others"...

They are not imposing their beliefs on anybody. You can still get contraception. It's just a question of who pays for it.

Are you not going to get contraception if somebody else won't pay for it??

If you want contraception... just go buy it! Nobody's stopping you!

a bit of reality
Shawnee Mission, KS

I find it utterly bizarre that this issue receives so much attention. If Hobby Lobby covers contraceptives, some of their employees will take advantage of that benefit and use it, thus causing Hobby Lobby to end up paying for it. Conversely, if they don't cover it, Hobby Lobby will still be giving their employees a paycheck, which some of the employees will use to pay for contraceptives. With our without the benefit, Hobby Lobby is indirectly funding contraceptives for its employees that want them.

Why is it morally acceptable to fund this through a paycheck, while funding it through an insurance benefit is utterly egregious?

a bit of reality
Shawnee Mission, KS

"Government regulations should never require Americans to go against their consciences where their faith is concerned."

If this is a valid justification for Hobby Lobby not to pay for insurance coverage, it is also a valid justification for pacifists not to pay taxes that are used to fund the military-industrial complex.

glendenbg
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mike Richards - Rather than framing these questions as minority/majority questions, think of them as questions of the ability of individuals to make decisions about their own lives.

Effective, reliable birth control may be the most important improvement in women's health in history. 99% of American women use birth control. It can be prohibitively expensive for many women; if it's covered by insurance, it's easier for women to access it. Allowing employers to make it harder for women to access birth control makes it more difficult for women to make choices about their own lives. Allowing a third party to influence such crucial decisions harms women's effective freedom.

Allowing same sex couples to marry is also an issue of allowing persons to make choices about their lives. Permitting same sex couples to marry in no way limits the ability of any one else to marry or to perceive that marriage as a holy sacrament. Denying same sex couples legal marriage makes it harder for those persons to lead lives of dignity - in fact, it is the government actively involving itself in citizens' lives in deleterious way.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Mike Richards – “Let's review what the Constitution says about "gays", "homosexuals", and "same-sex marriage". That's right, it says nothing.”

Glad we’re on the same page – your first comment seemed to imply that marriage was enshrined in our founding charter. Thank you for clarifying…

So can we assume two things from your 2nd comment – First, that any state which currently allows same-sex marriage is free to do so?

And second, that as views change any state in the future, including Utah, is also free to allow same-sex marriage?

Given the fact that most people under 40 think being gay is about as interesting as being left-handed, it seems inevitable that gay marriage will one day soon by the law of the land – and that from a Constitutional standpoint (not really interested in your pseudo-moral religious objections) you are OK with that, yes?

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

glendenbg,

Re "effective freedom"

You said, " Allowing a third party to influence such crucial decisions harms women's effective freedom"...

By your logic... my boss not buying my lunch harms my "effective freedom" to have lunch.

If you want contraception so bad... wouldn't you guy it regardless of whether you can get somebody else to pay for it or not?

I mean I'm going to have lunch today... whether I can get my boss or somebody else to pay for it or not. Right?

===

a bit of reality 9:41 expressed a good point though. Even if Hobby Lobby doesn't give you coverage to pay for contraception... they give you a paycheck you can use to get contraception. So in a way... my boss IS paying for my lunch today!

I think I'll go to Sizzler today.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'The Constitution explicitly protects establishments of religion. It does not protect "feelings".'

Then what is religion?

We have examples of LGBT in every aspect of human history. Predating any religion. Any and all attempts to change a persons orientation has a 0.2% likely hood of change.

I have better odds in Vegas.

2) What is religion, but a choice? You cannot prove religion, ergo the concept of 'faith'.

So, who is legislating based on 'feelings' here?

Also why is this topic about gay marriage, when the OP was about 'contraception'…?

# 1 that is off topic.

# 2 if you call birth control contraception than you admit, by omission, that birth control is not an 'abortion pill'.

Bottom line, I pay for male-enhancing drugs with my taxes, paid into Medicare.

Now, people want an exception for contraception due to the feelings of their religion?

What about the right of a person to choose their own actions?

You cannot claim you are 'allowing' something, when you are factually restricting access.

You cannot be the victim and the oppressor, at the same time.

If religion has no issue with male-enhancement, it should take no issue with women. But wait….

to comment

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