Amazing how every editorial in this paper somehow becomes an indictment of
Obama. The mandate is not demanding abortions, but birth control. Even the
Plan B and ella can hardly be considered abortions...even the most ridiculous
proposed definitions of abortion (the "heartbeat bill" in Ohio)
wouldn't define these as abortions. They are preventative in the same way a
condom is. Abstinence is a great personal policy, and indeed the
only guarantee against STDs and unwanted pregnancy. But it doesn't work as a
public health policy because human nature is that people will have sex.
Encouraging the use of contraceptives will save our health industries and
welfare rolls billions of dollars and reduce the number of babies born into
HannahA palindrome.Meanwhile,Hannah sends
clear message on President Obama."...Are we not drawn onward,
we few, drawn onward to new era"?
Esquire, please explain this loss of "individual religious freedom."
Without addressing the unbiased merits of the case, tt is unfortunate that Ms.
Smith has politicized some key Constitutional questions that were previously
unresolved. I understand her personal involvement in this case, but her
position indicates a nexis between government actions and politics, with her
religious beliefs. As a member of the editorial board of this LDS-owned
newspaper, given frequent access to write as she chooses, I question the
principle of the separation of the Church and the GOP. Saying it and then not
practicing it sends a message. It is a little like the farce of the super PACs
being "independent" of the campaigns, as illustrated by Stephen
Colbert. As for the case, it was a victory for religious
institutions. But was it a loss for individual religious freedom? These are
two separate issues.
It's nice to see that one branch of government can make a decision!
BYU Track Star,I am not an attorney, but I thought the issue turned
on the fact that the teacher (despite dedicating most of her time to classroom
teaching) was considered to be a minister of sorts (specifically a "called
teacher") with religious training.I am not sure non-ministerial
employees could be similarly treated.Just my understanding.
This ruling reminds me of case the LDS Church found itself in several years ago.
The case involved a Deseret Gym employee seen drinking a beer, presumably during
non-working hours. The legal theory at issue here was could the LDS Church or
its agents terminate the Employement of this (low-level) Gym Employee because he
was not strictly following the WofW. If I am understanding the article correctly
the LDS Church is exempt from Federal EEOC laws because it is a religious
organization and therefore the putative employee employement can be terminated
at the whim of the LDS Church. People am I missing any details of how this
ruling would have been applied in a case like this?
This arguement just doesn't make any sense.The Healthcare policy
doesn't force anyone HAVING anything.It's a menu of options to
choose from.No one is FORCING anyone to have or participate in an
abortion.This would be like forcing my Healthcare Company to stop
covering perscriptions, which are alcohol based solutions [think NyQuil]
and can be legally perscribed by my Doctor, simply because I choose not to
consume alcohol on account of my personal religious beliefs.Ridiculous.Keep the option, CHOOSE for yourselves.
Of couse. Because there really isn't a war on Christmas, Christians, or
religion in this country.