Religious freedom is an important, fundamental constitutional right

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • hawaiisky MOUNTAIN HOME, UT
    Feb. 20, 2012 1:15 p.m.

    So is the right to a trial

  • flukes MOUNTAIN HOME, UT
    Feb. 20, 2012 12:31 p.m.

    Senator Hatch has supported several individual mandates. SCHIP, and Medicare part D. What about the NDAA Mr. Hatch, and the centuries old right to a public trial? This goes back to Roman times. Do we have to start comparing America to Roman times...?

  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 20, 2012 11:16 a.m.

    Yes, Senator Hatch, Religious Freedom is an important constitutionally protected right.

    Yet how much religious freedom do we have in our schools and what have you done about it?

    It's time for new leadership. We need someone like Dale Ash.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 10:45 p.m.

    Career politicians like Senator Hatch must salivate every time an issue like this comes up. It provides a great distraction from real issues and allows him to bang the partisan exaggeration drum and hope that the Tea Party likes the beat. As far as I am concerned, you can keep your hyperbole, Senator. You know this is no threat to religious freedom. But that's not the point, is it? Re-election is. Scoring points for the Party is. Helping this nation and it's citizens is....not.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Feb. 19, 2012 9:39 p.m.

    Well, we at least have Pagan to help us.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 8:33 p.m.


    It's against my religion to pay for any of the benefits you get from the government. Your kids, their schools, your church, etc. Anything that gets my tax dollars because of your deductions are against and an insult to my God. I shouldn't have to pay one dime for you violate the laws of my religion.

    Get it now.

    Feb. 19, 2012 7:36 p.m.

    Everyone that is opposed to the contraception mandate miss the greater point that has nothing to do with religious freedom. It should be pointed out that women already have access to contraception through various means. Many plans already cover birth control voluntarily without a mandate. Also birth control is also available pretty cheaply. This is a good thing. Competition in the birth control markets have brought the costs down through the years. Basically everyone who wants birth control now gets birth control.

    But when consumers are removed from the price mechanism, prices will go up. Similar to the reason that health care is so very expensive in the US. Health care customers don't participate in the price mechanism because they "think" they are getting something for "free." But there is no such thing as a free lunch. Women will get all their birth control for free. This will change women's attitudes and they will demand more birth control even when they don't need it. And the costs will be passed along to others.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 5:29 p.m.

    Just to be clear about why ella is labelled as a five-day emergency contraceptive. It's not that ella won't work after five days; it's that it's likely to act as an abortifacient then. (Because it normally takes about 6-10 days for a fertilized egg to implant.)

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 5:03 p.m.

    @Furry1993 "Those are the facts."

    The mandate includes all FDA-approved "emergency contraceptives," including ella, or ulipristal acetate.

    Ella works by blocking progesterone, which is needed by the uterus to grow and feed an embryo. It can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus, and it can also cause an already-implanted embryo to starve. Therefore, using either definition of pregnancy, ella can terminate it.

    Those are the facts.

    @Pagan "The NIGHT after, sex?"

    Up to five days after, according to the manufacturer.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 4:32 p.m.

    How can something be an 'abortion pill'...

    BEFORE, there is even a fetus?

    This, is a human being?

    The NIGHT after, sex?

    Show me this, in the bible.

    This is not a religious belief.

    This is propaganda!

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 3:56 p.m.

    To Nate | 3:01 p.m. Feb. 19, 2012

    If you choose to use abortion-inducing drugs, don't try to force me -- against my religious beliefs -- to pay for them. That's the issue.


    Once again an attempt is being made to mis-state the effect of the medication which this argument concerns. They are NOT "abortion-inducing drugs". They are contraception -- they prevent pregnancies from starting. They do NOT (and cannot) abort pregnancies. Those are the facts.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 3:33 p.m.

    Does the radical right ever stop and wonder
    WHY the Amish never have any problem with this?

    Let me giver you a clue --
    They don't tell Government or anyone else how to live or what to do,
    So - Government and everyone else doesn't tell THEM what to do.

    If you want Government out of Religion,
    Keep Religion out of Government.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 3:25 p.m.


    Don't force me to subsidize your blood pressure or diabetes medicine because you didn't follow the Word of Wisdom. Don't ask me to subsidize (through my insurance premiums) your blood transfusion as it may be against some others' religious beliefs.

    See, we could do this all day.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    @Pagan "If you don't like birth control...don't use it."

    If you choose to use abortion-inducing drugs, don't try to force me -- against my religious beliefs -- to pay for them. That's the issue.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 12:01 p.m.

    Senator Hatch,

    You lost me at Obamacare (third word). If you want us to be informed and care about the issues, why not use the proper terms for things?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    The First Amendment protection of religious freedom is a freedom held by the People - not by corporations.

    My refusal to follow the dictates of a religion to which I do not belong is not an infringement on - or a threat to - the rights of that religion.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 10:19 a.m.

    The most dangerous threat to religious freedom is religious freedom itself.

    When we deny the government the ability to prevent the beliefs of one religion to be forced upon another religion, we are destroying the power and wisdom of the American Constitution.

    No where in the Constitution does the concept of religion extend into the operation of business. If a religious hospital or an insurance company or any other business like organization caters only to the members of that religion, then it can be argued to be protected from civil law by the Firs Amendment.

    If a business operation of any sort caters to the general public, it must accede to abide by the civil law.

    Business operations are the requirements of society. They only exist to serve society. They are and should be controlled by the society wherein they exist. They are not an extension of a religion, nor are the an extension of the rights of individuals.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Feb. 19, 2012 9:05 a.m.

    Ever Politicking. The Affordable Health Care Act is some dangerous threat to Religion. Bunk!

    But if we really wanted to avoid any controversy we should have totally eliminated the Insurance - Employer funded approach and adopted a national single payer system like most modern countries have long ago done.

    The politics of fear once again raises it insidious hand. I am ashamed that a senior Senator from Utah is doing it, but not surprised.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 19, 2012 9:05 a.m.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.." Sorry senator, the first amendment does not trump the laws of your creator. Civil Rights afforded one sex are due the other sex. The problem is religions are acting in violation of this basic human truth..that all men are created equal. Within the confines of religious practice the first amendment does protect that discrimination. A civil society should however not honor the violation of human rights by anyone.

    Human rights granted by our government, whether by law, stature, or constitutional amendment is due all members of our society.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 9:03 a.m.

    The self-serving words of a politician playing games with the concept of religious freedom astound me! When you are consistent, Orrin, across the board on the concept of religious freedom, come back and talk to us. You want religious freedom for the things you like, but deny it for beliefs and practices that you do not like. Your own religious history provides a perfect example. Do you support the principles of Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) or not? If so, then you must be honest and agree that the Obama Administration was well within its rights under the law to do what it did. If not, then you should call for the right of groups to exercise polygamy and other activities based on religious beliefs. Senator, you cannot be honest and have it both ways. Otherwise, you are teetering on the edge of a state-sponsorship of religion, and if that happens, you can bet your religion will be left on the outside as it was in the past. Stop demagoguing it for your political ambitions.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 1:05 a.m.

    'Religious freedom is an important, fundamental constitutional right' - Title

    This is not about religious 'freedom'.


    ** 'Thousands chant 'No Mosque here!' on 9/11 Aniversary' - By Guy Benson - Townhall - 09/12/10

    ** 'Federal judge dismisses Summit suit against Pleasant Grove' - By Dennis Romboy - DSNews - 06/04/10

    "A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the city that claim it violated the establishment clause of the US constitution by allowing a Ten Commandments monument by rejecting one showing the the Salt Lake-based religious sectâs beliefs. The clause in the First Amendment prohibits government from adopting a national religion." - Article

    Otherwise, we would hear this plea for help with OTHER faiths....

    and not JUST, one.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2012 1:00 a.m.

    'Late last year, the Department of Health and Human Services ordered all employers to cover in their employee insurance plans "preventive services" such as sterilization, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs and devices. This would force many religious hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to either violate their religious beliefs by complying or face the consequences.' - Article


    But Mr. Hatch:

    ** 'Romney Maintained Massachusetts Contraception Requirement That Mirrors Obamaâs Rule' - By Igor Volsky - Think Progress - 02/07/12

    'In 2002 â the very same year Romney campaigned for governor of Massachusetts â the state enacted a âcontraceptive equityâ law that REQUIRED insurers that provide outpatient benefits to cover hormone replacement therapy and ALL FDA-approved contraceptive methods. â article

    Mitt Romney signed almost the EXACT same legislature...

    in Massachusetts.

    In 2002.

    You said, nothing.

    Besides ignoring the policy of the Republican party, there is a very simple answer here.

    1) Over 80 of Catholic women already USE birth control.

    2) If you don't like birth control...

    don't use it.

    It is not yours to dictate who ELSE, cannot use a product.