HHS mandate still threatens religious freedom

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 8:17 p.m.

    I suspect there will be enough challenges to the constitutionality of this outrageous infringement on the precedent of all sorts of "conscience clause" exceptions that the Supreme Court will be forced to consider and, if they have the least degree of integrity, overrule it.

    But, then again, we've seen the integrity of the Supreme Court fail, spectacularly, on several previous occasions. Most noteworthy of which, in this context, is the infamous Roe v. Wade decision itself and upon which rests all the subsequent political upheaval.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 10, 2013 4:46 p.m.

    Re: "Religious freedom does not give you the right to take that freedom from your employees."

    So, what religion is it that has as its sacraments abortion, birth control, and abortifacient pills? And which religious holy writ commands government to pay, so that parishioners may partake?

    That would be the only religion that could possibly be offended by permitting Americans the freedom to opt out, personally and financially, from these practices they consider evil.

    And, if such a religion actually exists, why should it be favored over all others?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 9, 2013 5:47 p.m.

    Religious freedom does not give you the right to take that freedom from your employees.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 9, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    @Counter Intelligence

    My tax dollars are used, against my will and counter to my conscience, to fund the following activities:

    capital punishment
    the war in Iraq
    the war in Afghanistan
    drone strikes in other countries with whom we are not at war

    Will you support my religious right to be free from the forced participation in these atrocities? If not, you are a hypocrite on this issue.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 9, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    @Counter Intelligence

    “So if the law said you must go to church? Would you complain about that law?”

    Yes, most definably, if I was a citizen of a government controlled by a church. That is exactly the reason we must fight the efforts of churches to control our government.

    “The argument here is that the HHS mandate is unconstitutional because it forces religions to violate their conscience.”

    I do not understand how a law that applies to a business operation forces a citizen to violate his conscience. The owner is not “the business” and the business is not a citizen. The business is an entity not protected in any way from the laws and regulations of government.

    Charity operations are commercial businesses in the view of our society and therefore the government. It doesn’t matter is they are “for- profit or non-profit, if they engage in any sort of commercial transactions, have employees, or sell goods, they are a business operation

    Your membership in the American society is voluntary. But if you choose to be an American you will be required to pay the dues. Period.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    April 9, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    @Counter Intellegence
    Here are the groups that are affected by this mandate. People who are religious, but own a non religious business, IE Hobby Lobby, religious charities who accept taxpayer $$$, and for profit arms of religions, IE The Deseret News. The ACA doesn't affect the actual organization that runs a religion, for example, the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric(the organizational arm that runs the LDS Church) would not be subject to the mandate if they choose not to be. If you want to run a business, take taxpayer money or have a for profit arm of your church you should be required to follow the same rules as anyone else in the market place.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 9, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    Re: "This is no longer a battle over choice, freedom, or health care. It is about those who wish to demonstrate unrighteous dominion over others."

    I couldn't agree more.

    It has become a sacrament of demonic secularism to advocate and support the brutal exercise of unrighteous dominion over those of us who desire not to participate in abortion, either personally or financially.

    Liberals and "progressives" disingenuously suggest that abstaining from support to the taking of innocent human life is a denial of choice to those who favor it. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. Planned [Un]Parenthood, NARAL, the Democrat Party and many other "progressive" organizations and individuals remain as free as ever to subsidize or cover costs associated with unborn carnage.

    Freedom has been taken, on the other hand, from those of us opposing the carnage.

    Standing up for unborn freedoms by abstaining from financial support of abortion is no more an exercise of unrighteous dominion than refusing to buy a gun for the Sandy Hook perpetrator.

    Contrary suggestions are willfully disingenuous.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    There is a vast difference between expecting religious charities to comply with rules of commerce, such as filing tax forms and using legal accounting practices, and forcing them to engage in behavior that is counter to their religious doctrine. The fact that you cannot comprehend that is extremely disturbing

    @The Real Maverick
    You have no moral authority to lecture me.
    If my money if forcible financing the nation's largest "fungible" abortion provider AND my money is forcibly being place into insurance pools to finance abortofacients: then I am being forced to finance abortion, regardless of your histrionic ostrich act.
    You efforts to silence dissent by attempting to shame others into silence for questioning politically correct intolerance is typical of a left-wing bully

    @Ultra Bob
    So if the law said you must go to church? Would you complain about that law?
    The argument here is that the HHS mandate is unconstitutional because it forces religions to violate their conscience.
    It is interesting that those who often cite the nonestablishment clause of the Constitution continuously forget the noninterference portion of the same First Amendment.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 9, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    The greatest threat to the civil liberties of people comes from religious organizations. And this is true in America just as much as everywhere else in the world.

    Civil liberties are those secured to us by our national government by the authority of the Constitution and enforced by law. Our civil liberties are only as secure as our governments ability to enforce the law.

    If private groups such as religions and churches are able to block our governments ability to enforce the law, then the Constitution becomes worthless.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 9, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    "My money is forcibly financing abortion; I don't have a choice"

    Not, it has not.

    Now stop lying. I'm tired of it. This is no longer an issue of being misinformed or ignorant. This has been disputed for years now. You, in particular, have been corrected several times on this issue. Your comment goes completely against the DN rules of conduct. They are not thoughtful or constructive. Take your trolling elsewhere. The God I know does not approve of lying.

    Now, as far as health care and religion. Let these services be provided and let people choose what to do. As I remember, God did not impede Adam and Eve from partaking of the forbidden fruit. yes, he warned them. He gave his commandments. But he also gave them agency to CHOOSE.

    This is no longer a battle over choice, freedom, or health care. It is about those who wish to demonstrate unrighteous dominion over others.

    Let people have freedom and use their free agency to choose whether they want to use birth control or receive abortions.

    Free agency was God's plan after all.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    I repeat, because the fashionably intolerant do not seem to comprehend: I may pay into a pot for insurance purposes but NONE of those services are presently about terminating life; abortofacents are.
    The constitution explicitly guarantees freedom of religion, not free abortion drugs.
    Therefore I will continue to confront intolerance.

    How many churches and other charities use "fungible" funds to terminate life?
    PP received over $480 million in public funds last year; yet according to Media Matters (a biased left wing source) its clinic income is over $300 million and its total revenue from abortion services was roughly $164,154,000, a year. Over 51 percent of Planned Parenthood's clinic income comes from abortion.
    The 3% figure PP claims it spends on abortion unravels quickly: It is woefully underestimated and does not include chemically induced abortions
    1 in 11 clients receive an abortion and 92% of pregnant women who enter the door receive an abortion.

    Their supposed health services are easily replicated in places that do a better job without fungible funding issues.

    Furthermore, PP was founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger and still disproportionately aborts minorities, supports gender selective abortion and routinely provides fraudulent services to minors.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 9, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    If people of faith "choose" to enter into an acitivity of commerece that is regulated by laws that may conflict with their personal beliefs..yes they must comply with those laws. That's how a society works.

    One point to reckognize here is that we are talking about religious beliefs that are extreme in nature. The belief that a person is formed the second an egg and a sperm meet is extreme. Just as extreme as the belief that an abortion in the ninth month of a pregnancy is the absolute choice of the mother. So what's happening here is that the "faithful" are trying to re-set the discussion to their paramaters..don't fall for it.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 8, 2013 10:39 p.m.


    First, it is illegal for taxpayer funds to go for abortion. You can use the argument that all the money goes into one "pot" so to speak--ie that money is "fungible" but then that argument can be applied to other things--such as charitable contributions churches collect.


    35% of PP funding goes for contraception
    35% goes toward testing and treating STDs
    16% goes toward cancer screenings
    10% goes other women's health services
    3% goes toward abortion
    1% other services

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 8, 2013 10:28 p.m.

    In case you were not aware, religious rights are supposed to be protected under the constitution. I have yet to see where HHS has the same clearly delineated protections. But since when have liberals cared about the constitution?

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    April 8, 2013 6:09 p.m.

    As long as our system of government forces me to pay thousands of dollars in taxes every year to finance a military-industrial complex to which I am morally opposed, I'm not going to feel the least bit sorry for people who are forced to pay a couple of dollars in insurance premiums for healthcare services to which they are morally opposed.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 8, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    Playing daft? Not daft enough to fall for conspiracy theories, care to provide any evidence to support those claims about Planned Parenthood? As for the health insurance issue I think we already covered this ground many times before but once again we all pay into a system that “forces us to subsidize” certain things we may object to but in a democracy that’s how it goes. I dont know what exaclty you hope to gain by having the exact same debate ovre and over.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    Don’t play daft
    Tax funding goes to Planned Parenthood to prop up their bogus health services (which are mostly comprised of referrals to nonsubsidized clinics who do the actual work) so that PP can shuffle its other funds to perform abortions. My money is forcibly financing abortion – I don’t have a choice
    Many states, such as Obama’s Illinois, have eliminated conscious clauses - forcing pharmacists to provide abortofacients and doctors and hospitals to provide abortions, regardless of their personal choice. So pro-life doctors, pharmacists and Catholic hospitals do NOT have a choice.
    The HHS mandate requires people to pay into insurance programs that pay for abortofacients – eliminating the choice to not pay
    Washington is considering forcing all insurance to cover abortion, forcing others to subsidize abortion, regardless of their choice

    So yes I am paying the “morning after bill” as you put it, and you are right; that’s outrageous we must put a stop to it.
    I have no respect for passive/aggression; which includes faux-choice hypocrites who play the phony victim card in order to rationalize anti-choice perpetration

  • Truthseeker2 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
    April 8, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    Some background information on Mary Ann Glendon.
    She has been actively involved in religiois and conservative organizations, served in the Bush Administration and
    became the first female President of the Roman Catholic Church's Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, when she was appointed by Pope John Paul II on March 9, 2004 (she was already a member of the academy since January 9, 1994).

    Conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia has written:

    "Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity."

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 8, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    I was not aware that you were being required to have an abortion, be present at abortions or to take the morning after bill? Your right that’s outrageous we must put a stop to it.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 8, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    How about "religion still threatens HHS mandate". Let's leave the decisions on provision of health care to doctors and patients.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    How do pro-choice hypocrits even dare utter their moniker with a straight face, when they are blatantly anti-everyone-else's-choice zealots and extremists.

    I have the choice to NOT particpaite in your behaviour