Time to leave 2016 behind, Hillary lost and honest people know that contraception is dirt cheap. Forcing people who in good conscience don’t want to fund abortions because of religious principles is not some “war on women”. It is the definition of the freedom the country is known for around the world.
When do you Lefties ever devise solutions that don’t require the government? You know, start a charity to fund that small percentage of women who can’t or won’t purchase contraception (or won’t have their boyfriends do it).
Instead, it is all Totalitarian force, all the time. “I am not going to help people until the government forces everyone to join in! That’s how compassionate I am.” said the Left about everything.
As for birth control being dirt cheap define dirt cheap because what may be that to you could be expensive to others. I am able to take the most common generic for of the pill and if not for insurance it would cost $30 monthly (which personally I feel is reasonable but again I am financially in a position to consider that reasonable). Secondly the main reason I take the pill is because I am on another medication for another condition which requires I do not become pregnant while on this medication due to the severity of birth defects that would either cause a still birth or a baby to die shortly after birth. Why shouldn’t my insurance cover my prescription?
Wouldn’t NOT allowing for coverage for contraceptives cause more abortions in this country? Men and women will still have sex (especially if they are married). Even married couples can be poor and unable to afford contraceptives without insurance assistance.
If I had to provide insurance coverage for employees and I was a staunch catholic (I am catholic and do believe in the church and there teachings however I do not regularly attend) I would much rather provide access to coverage for contraception so unwanted pregnancy could be avoid from the start rather than provide coverage for abortions (which I do believe is taking a life).
I am a mid 40’s single white female that is educated has very conservative ideals and tends to vote/think republican over democrat (however I prefer to think of myself as a conservative independent) and while I believe all people (men and women) have the right to decide about abortion individually and would never think anything bad about someone going that route, for me personally it is defiantly NOT an option. Just want to throw this out there before I am accused of being a lefty or liberal or democrat (not that there is anything wrong with that).
It is a simple issue: do we allow people with religious convictions to have the freedom to choose not to pay for this? Or do we force them to pay for this?
Your personal preference is NOT the issue. What is at issue are those people who don’t want to pay for contraception for others out of true religious conviction?
Force them to? Or not? (Imaging the person was Muslim and didn’t want to pay for it.)
For some people though taking contraceptives is JUST as important as someone with diabetes having their insulin covered by their health insurance. I HAVE to take birth control pills I DO NOT have a choice IF I want to be able to function in my day to day life (work, have dinner with family and friends, take walks, etc). The medication that ALLOWS me to do this is used to also treat breast cancer and other aliments where killing rapidly reproducing cells is needed for the patient. Guess what, it can ALSO be used in early term abortions (within the first few weeks) to stop the pregnancy and cause a miscarriage. Do we tell the thousands of people that rely on it to LIVE that to bad abortion is against my religion? Isn’t allowing someone to die also against someone’s religion? Should Catholic employers be allowed to say sorry we won’t cover HPV vaccinations for your children because that could lead them to have sex? Denying medical treatment for people that may not hold the same religious beliefs as you is basically forcing your beliefs on them, and potentially causing them even further harm.
PS – to anyone that may be offended or upset for my referencing the Catholic religion, I truly apologize as it wasn’t my intent, it is just the religion I happen to know.
July 17, 2019 at 4:05 pm
craig cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
7
Say WHAT? Contraception is the same as insulin shots? C’mon. You can make a better analogy than that. No one dies from lack of contraception . . . and no one has religious convictions against paying for someone’s insulin either.
July 17, 2019 at 4:13 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
7
3
“Your personal preference is NOT the issue. What is at issue are those people who don’t want to pay for contraception for others out of true religious conviction?”
so personal preference is not the issue unless the personal preference is driven by religious beliefs. all hail the church of the Fonz!
July 17, 2019 at 4:15 pm
SAK74 says:
Like or Dislike:
9
1
You either didn’t read my full comment and comprehend what I was saying or you are purposefully being argumentative…….If a diabetic doesn’t take insulin they can have all kinds of health concerns and problems because of that. In order for me to take the medication that treats my RA I HAVE to be on birth control. If I don’t control my RA I can’t function also my immune system can get incredibly compromised leading to several different types of lung infections that can actually cause death due to complications from RA……..so yes me not being able to have birth control could cause me great harm. Is that the norm with birth control no it isn’t however in my case it is…….My RA meds are also used to treat breast cancer and terminate early term pregnancies…….if I can’t have the meds, if breast cancer patients cannot have those meds they could die due to their diseases………just because in some cases(not typical, kinda like me an birth control) that same med is used for abortions so then employers should have to be forced to provide it for employees.
July 17, 2019 at 8:08 pm
craig cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
How many times do we have to go over this: there is NO religious or conscientious reason to refuse to pay for insulin shots. And for that reason, it is totally off the point.
Are you trying to act like you don’t get it?
July 18, 2019 at 12:59 pm
SAK74 says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
It is you who is acting like you aren’t trying to get it. My point is that just because a medication has one use doesn’t mean it is the ONLY use. I take birth control so I can take my RA medication and lead a normal life in which I can function doing normal day to day things. How can someone possibly say they object to that due to their religion? I need my RA meds the same as a diabetic needs their insulin. It isn’t my fault that I also need birth control in order to be able to take my RA meds. If employers want to offer health insurance then they should do so and NOT based on their religion. If they are opposed to people taking birth control then DON’T offer health insurance.
July 18, 2019 at 8:35 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
So you support giving freedom to employers to deny your required medicine, but not the Sisters of the Poor.
Got it.
July 19, 2019 at 3:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
An interesting post, and the conservatives who replied to you fell for your trap, and I do imagine that is what it is.
Yes, some people have your scenario, most people don’t. Most people are trying to get their birth control paid for, which isn’t ok, and yes, $30 is cheap enough for anyone to afford.
Taking the abstract and applying that to justify free birth control for all is absurd.
If you want to have an exception for mothers who take it as part of a regimen to stop pregnancies in the event of health of baby or mother, that is one thing, you’re not asking for that. You’re asking for it to be provided to everyone.
Craig come of it, you let her demolish you on this, and she did.
You didn’t make good points at all, and some were down right shameful.
Her comparison DOES fly, with regards to insulin, and is in fact, a worse scenario in the way she makes it.
Women who need birth control for the purpose she mentioned should be allowed to get it on their plan.
There is no need to then apply the religious objections to it, as they don’t even apply in the Catholic Church I might add, for her abstract scenario.
However, this should not blanket apply SAK74, and I think you are darn well aware of this, and are making the abstract argument on purpose. Most people who take this are not women with your scenario.
The only ‘war’ in this discussion is the one by libbies on innocent, unborn children.
The Real War on Women is occurring due to some religion’s basic premise that women are inferior to men, and should be disciplined for …. driving a car, etc.
War on women? Give me a break. I love how leftists get to co-opt the term “war on women” as though there is not a single woman in the United States that disagrees with the left’s platform on reproductive rights and abortion.
Freedom of religion is as important is as the freedom from having religion imposed on one. In America we have the freedom to form and operate companies. Those companies must follow the laws and mandates of the sates and federal government in taxes, trade, employment law, liquor law, etc. I have seen business thrive and fail based on it’s religious freedom to be open or closed based on the days it chooses to observe it’s religion and beliefs. The federal government mandates health care coverage. Allowing a business to “self-select” which laws it will follow or not follow is more than argument over left vs. right or politics. This is not an argument about religion or abortion. At it’s core it is a basic principle that you must follow the same rules as set out by the government and imposed on all. If religion can be used as an excuse not to follow the rules/laws it’s a slippery slope. If you don’t want to provide contraception based on your religious belief don’t operate a company in America – it really is that simple. An exception for “religious belief” in ANY area open the flood gate to much larger challenges – would anyone argue it’s okay for an adult to sexually abuse a young child because his/her religion allows this practice? The constitution is an instrument of protection for all and the freedom of religion also means freedom from religion and there should be no “exceptions or exemptions”.
Viaggigirl: To summarize your argument: “religious freedoms must be subject to federal law.” The irony of course is that the first amendment’s purpose was–and is–to protect religious institutions from the federal government’s encroachment into religious freedoms. Comparing child molestation to Catholic institutions wanting to opt out of contraceptive laws is utterly ridiculous. You are basically saying “religious freedoms matter except when the federal government says they don’t.” The first amendment was intended to protect religious institutions from EXACTLY that type of vacuous logic.
Religious institutions, yes. Is Hobby Lobby really a “religious institution”? I jused to write religious institutions for 1 of the top 3 carriers in that market. We never went after bakeries or craft stores. Just because the owner is of a certain doctrine does not make the company a religious institution.
Definition
Churches, temples, mosques and other places of worship and institutions that exist to support and manage the practice of a specific set of religious beliefs.
Hi Captain Planet: Hobby Lobby and Chick fil a are obviously not religious institutions, however, the first amendment simply states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Regardless of whether or not the institution is a private business or a religious institution, the owner’s rights are still protected by the constitution–the same goes for their employees.
“If you don’t want to provide contraception based on your religious belief don’t operate a company in America – it really is that simple” Ahh yes, the old ironic “go somewhere else” argument. Your views on religious freedom are Orwellian. You basically just stated: “if you disagree with my leftist interpretation of religious freedom then you need to leave.” By the way, Sandra Sotomayor herself would rip your little argument to shreds. This is exactly why the supreme court eviscerated the lower courts in Colorado in the Masters Bakery case–it is just pure antipathy towards any conservative religious opinion.
For the last time, I am a registered independent, not part of the Democratic party. Contraceptives are not abortions. In fact, with our first daughter, our doctor prescribed the pill so my wife could better regulate her cycle and allow us to conceive. Women are prescribed the pill for other reasons, too. And, they don’t always have boyfriends, let alone those who are going to pick up the bill. Some have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to feed their families and have nothing left to pay for contraceptives. These are the very people some on the right accuse of abusing the system. So, you would rather they continue to grow their family? SMH…
Who cares what you do personally? The issue is about the freedom of everyone in the country to do what their conscience and religion tells them they should do or not do?
You are either on the side of protecting that freedom or on the side of forcing them to do something they don’t believe in.
Craig, there are so many times I do think the things you say have merit, however you are contradicting yourself. You open by saying “who cares what you do personally” yet isn’t it the employers PERSONAL beliefs that you want to be allowed to make the decision on whether or not they provide coverage for contraceptives to their employees? Why should my employers personal religious beliefs affect my medical care/coverage? I agree freedom should be protected but why is one persons personal religious beliefs more deserving of protection than someone else’s personally held beliefs? Rastas believe in smoking ganja (pot) as it opens their minds to Jah (their term for god). They do not believe in doing other drugs or using caffeine or drinking as those are considered poisons to their bodies. Given this, do you support legalizing pot for religious use? It is part of their religion and the conscience and religion tell them smoking is what they should be doing. Does my or your belief that pot should be illegal not infringe on their right to practice their religion?
I am in favor of any one being free to do anything that doesn’t have the side effect of hurting children. Allowing the miniscule number of Rastafarians in America to take THC products? No problem.
Legalizing recreational pot? Only if you pretend the evidence of mounting damage to underage people is non-existent (the Kangaroo approach: who cares about other people’s kids.)
How on earth is there any difference in legalizing pot for medical, religious or recreational purposes? How would children be hurt by legalizing recreational use and not hurt by legalizing medical or religious use? My question is actually serious and not meant disrespectfully or argumentatively. Personally I think it should not be legal in any way shape or form just because of the harmful effects I have seen it have on family and friends.
July 17, 2019 at 8:03 pm
craig cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Because when society endorses any substance, which is what legal, recreational pot does – it endorses it as safe – then kids use at a much greater rate than before.
That is exactly what has happened nationwide over the past 10 years. Along with the fact the Black Market is bigger than ever (per the NY Times), contrary to what we were told by the Legalization crowd. More than 80% of the pot in California is black market, high-potency pot sold by Joe Schmo, your neighbor.
And so LOTS of kids are consuming THC products now, high-potency pot that causes loss of IQ, mental illness, paranoia, psychosis and car crashes.
But allowing ONLY the Rastafarians to do so would not be a society-wide endorsement that THC products are okay. It would not lead to greater access, both legal and black market. It wouldn’t put advertisements for THC products on billboards everywhere (but you can ban tobacco ads – try to connect those dots).
July 18, 2019 at 9:24 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
JULY 17, 2019 AT 8:03 PM
craig cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 0Thumb down 0
“Because when society endorses any substance…it endorses it as safe”
I’m so old, I remember the ads “I learned it from watching you”, “This is your brain on drugs, any questions”, all of the ads we currently see about tobacco use, and all the ads we see about drunk driving. Your premise is completely flawed. Any questions?
July 18, 2019 at 11:24 am
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Okay, wise guy. Explain to me then why nationwide use of THC products are way up for people under age 21 over the last 10 years.
If you honestly think keeping pot legal will make kids/teens NOT smoke it you need have a talk with a group of typical teens. I am the mother of a teenager who has been told (as well as his friends he has grown up with) ANY drugs (as well as cigarettes and alcohol) are not good for you and should not be used especially when it is not legal to do so. Guess what…….he has used all three as have most of his friends. All of these kids have been taught from a very young age to NOT do any of these things and the dangers associated with them. They just don’t care. Our society is becoming one of instant gratification and for most of the youth today that is all they know so they try what they want. I don’t think legalizing pot has had as big an impact over the last 10 years as you think. My guess (yes I know it isn’t very scientific but I am going with mom intuition which has served me very well over the last almost 19 years) we are seeing up rise in use because kids want/expect instant gratification. They have no regard for consequences……we live in a society where there are no losers, everyone wins – when my son was caught at 16 smoking pot he was arrested and taken to the police station. I was called to come pick him up, my response to the officer was put his butt in a cell over night and let the consequences of his actions sink in. Guess what I learned, they can’t legally keep a minor and if I didn’t pick him up I would be arrested and charged with neglect…….crazy!
To get back on track with the actual article topic let me pose this question. If an employer doesn’t want to provide contraceptives to employees because they believe so deeply against the use of them should an employer be allowed to say they don’t want to allow their insurance plans to cover opiods because they lost a child due to an overdose? That parents consious
July 18, 2019 at 1:29 pm
SAK74 says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
(sorry I accidentally hit post before I was finished)…….the parent who owns the business and provides the insurance may feel they can’t in good conscious allow anyone else to take an opiod as they may wind up addicted. That parent may be so morally against use of opiods they don’t take them either because their belief is so strong that they are harmful and should not be used.
If we allowed people to decide things for others based on their personally held beliefs and morals everything would end up banned!
July 18, 2019 at 1:42 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
If that is true (source required), I’d say due to the fact there are way more edible products available. Kids these days don’t like to smoke. So, if they can eat something and get those effects, they are more likely to try it. That, and it’s tougher to purchase alcohol illegally than it was ten years ago. Path of least resistance
July 18, 2019 at 2:12 pm
sak74 says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
That is actually a good point Captain. When I was in high school those of my friends that did drink could always find someone over 21 that was willing to buy them booze for their parties. Today there is a huge effort by law enforcement to crack down on giving alcohol to minors and the penalties imposed on the adult are quite significant. Most over the age of 21 just aren’t willing to risk it today. Walk into a local HS today and the students could probably rattle off 10 names of kids at the school they can buy or get pot from.
July 17, 2019 at 2:15 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
6
2
Craig wrote, “The issue is about the freedom of everyone in the country to do what their conscience and religion tells them they should do or not do?”
Feel the same way about Rastafarians, Craig? Can they do what their conscience and religion tells them to do without your opinion infiltrating their ways?
No one is forcing these owners to pop contraceptives. That’s their personal choice whether or not they want to take them. And, if they are for free will, they’ll certainly understand it is up to their employees to make their own choices. That’s freedom.
Wow, Kangaroo, you can’t truly be that logic-deficient can you?
You are advocating forcing people to DO something they don’t want to do, pay for someone else’s birth control. You are not trying to force them to TAKE birth control (and you are not trying to STOP anyone from doing anything, including the Rastafarians.)
The issue is freedom to NOT do something. Man, Kangaroo, no wonder you are on the left side of every issue; you can’t think straight.
“You are advocating forcing people to DO something they don’t want to do, pay for someone else’s birth control.”
Happens all the time in our society. I don’t want my tax dollars being spent on 45’s golf and watching Fox and Friends. Those same dollars go to the same man who uses The Lord’s name in vain, which is against my religion. But, I’m not going to get all snowflakey about it, either. Suck it up and move on.
What a mindless reply. Your objection to Trump’s golf has nothing to do with your religion. And I am sure you have plenty of religious friends who have used the Lord’s name in vain(right before you expressed supreme outrage I am certain, heh heh.)
Try to focus: the issue is Religious Freedom based on Religious Conviction (unless your religion is anti-golf dishonesty worship, I mean).
•
JUNE 25, 2019 AT 8:49 PM
Andrew G. Simpson says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
This is a reminder of the comment section rules that are meant to encourage civil discourse. In particular, please be advised that ad hominem or other personal attacks against other users are a violation of the rules of the forum, even when the attacks are included in otherwise on-topic comments. Personal attacks include targeting another with offensive, obscene, libelous, defamatory or threatening language or slurs; assigning false or unwanted labels to another; questioning another’s character, integrity, morals or intelligence; disclosing another’s personal information; or assuming or assigning to another user a particular political, personal, social, religious or other motive.
Also, comments that are part of extended and repetitive squabbles between two and/or among small cliques of commenters are also inappropriate use of this forum.
This forum is also to be used only in a noncommercial manner.
In short, please address topics and express opinions while refraining from labeling or negatively or falsely characterizing others with whom you may disagree. If you can’t state your view without insulting another user, don’t state it.
Users remain solely responsible for the content of their communications. Insurance Journal has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any forum comments or content.
Insurance Journal has the right to suspend access to the firm for those who violate the terms of participation.
“…personal attacks against other users are a violation of the rules of the forum, even when the attacks are included in otherwise on-topic comments…Personal attacks include targeting another with offensive, obscene, libelous, defamatory or threatening language or slurs; assigning false or unwanted labels to another; questioning another’s character, integrity, morals or intelligence…In short, please address topics and express opinions while refraining from labeling or negatively…characterizing others with whom you may disagree.”
It looks like you stepped out of bounds. It’s tough to score when you can’t stay on the playing field.
A federal judge on Sunday granted a request by more than a dozen states to temporarily block the Trump administration from putting into effect new rules that would make it easier for employers to deny women health insurance coverage for contraceptives.
Good victory in the war on women!
Time to leave 2016 behind, Hillary lost and honest people know that contraception is dirt cheap. Forcing people who in good conscience don’t want to fund abortions because of religious principles is not some “war on women”. It is the definition of the freedom the country is known for around the world.
When do you Lefties ever devise solutions that don’t require the government? You know, start a charity to fund that small percentage of women who can’t or won’t purchase contraception (or won’t have their boyfriends do it).
Instead, it is all Totalitarian force, all the time. “I am not going to help people until the government forces everyone to join in! That’s how compassionate I am.” said the Left about everything.
As for birth control being dirt cheap define dirt cheap because what may be that to you could be expensive to others. I am able to take the most common generic for of the pill and if not for insurance it would cost $30 monthly (which personally I feel is reasonable but again I am financially in a position to consider that reasonable). Secondly the main reason I take the pill is because I am on another medication for another condition which requires I do not become pregnant while on this medication due to the severity of birth defects that would either cause a still birth or a baby to die shortly after birth. Why shouldn’t my insurance cover my prescription?
Wouldn’t NOT allowing for coverage for contraceptives cause more abortions in this country? Men and women will still have sex (especially if they are married). Even married couples can be poor and unable to afford contraceptives without insurance assistance.
If I had to provide insurance coverage for employees and I was a staunch catholic (I am catholic and do believe in the church and there teachings however I do not regularly attend) I would much rather provide access to coverage for contraception so unwanted pregnancy could be avoid from the start rather than provide coverage for abortions (which I do believe is taking a life).
I am a mid 40’s single white female that is educated has very conservative ideals and tends to vote/think republican over democrat (however I prefer to think of myself as a conservative independent) and while I believe all people (men and women) have the right to decide about abortion individually and would never think anything bad about someone going that route, for me personally it is defiantly NOT an option. Just want to throw this out there before I am accused of being a lefty or liberal or democrat (not that there is anything wrong with that).
It is a simple issue: do we allow people with religious convictions to have the freedom to choose not to pay for this? Or do we force them to pay for this?
Your personal preference is NOT the issue. What is at issue are those people who don’t want to pay for contraception for others out of true religious conviction?
Force them to? Or not? (Imaging the person was Muslim and didn’t want to pay for it.)
For some people though taking contraceptives is JUST as important as someone with diabetes having their insulin covered by their health insurance. I HAVE to take birth control pills I DO NOT have a choice IF I want to be able to function in my day to day life (work, have dinner with family and friends, take walks, etc). The medication that ALLOWS me to do this is used to also treat breast cancer and other aliments where killing rapidly reproducing cells is needed for the patient. Guess what, it can ALSO be used in early term abortions (within the first few weeks) to stop the pregnancy and cause a miscarriage. Do we tell the thousands of people that rely on it to LIVE that to bad abortion is against my religion? Isn’t allowing someone to die also against someone’s religion? Should Catholic employers be allowed to say sorry we won’t cover HPV vaccinations for your children because that could lead them to have sex? Denying medical treatment for people that may not hold the same religious beliefs as you is basically forcing your beliefs on them, and potentially causing them even further harm.
PS – to anyone that may be offended or upset for my referencing the Catholic religion, I truly apologize as it wasn’t my intent, it is just the religion I happen to know.
Say WHAT? Contraception is the same as insulin shots? C’mon. You can make a better analogy than that. No one dies from lack of contraception . . . and no one has religious convictions against paying for someone’s insulin either.
“Your personal preference is NOT the issue. What is at issue are those people who don’t want to pay for contraception for others out of true religious conviction?”
so personal preference is not the issue unless the personal preference is driven by religious beliefs. all hail the church of the Fonz!
You either didn’t read my full comment and comprehend what I was saying or you are purposefully being argumentative…….If a diabetic doesn’t take insulin they can have all kinds of health concerns and problems because of that. In order for me to take the medication that treats my RA I HAVE to be on birth control. If I don’t control my RA I can’t function also my immune system can get incredibly compromised leading to several different types of lung infections that can actually cause death due to complications from RA……..so yes me not being able to have birth control could cause me great harm. Is that the norm with birth control no it isn’t however in my case it is…….My RA meds are also used to treat breast cancer and terminate early term pregnancies…….if I can’t have the meds, if breast cancer patients cannot have those meds they could die due to their diseases………just because in some cases(not typical, kinda like me an birth control) that same med is used for abortions so then employers should have to be forced to provide it for employees.
How many times do we have to go over this: there is NO religious or conscientious reason to refuse to pay for insulin shots. And for that reason, it is totally off the point.
Are you trying to act like you don’t get it?
It is you who is acting like you aren’t trying to get it. My point is that just because a medication has one use doesn’t mean it is the ONLY use. I take birth control so I can take my RA medication and lead a normal life in which I can function doing normal day to day things. How can someone possibly say they object to that due to their religion? I need my RA meds the same as a diabetic needs their insulin. It isn’t my fault that I also need birth control in order to be able to take my RA meds. If employers want to offer health insurance then they should do so and NOT based on their religion. If they are opposed to people taking birth control then DON’T offer health insurance.
So you support giving freedom to employers to deny your required medicine, but not the Sisters of the Poor.
Got it.
An interesting post, and the conservatives who replied to you fell for your trap, and I do imagine that is what it is.
Yes, some people have your scenario, most people don’t. Most people are trying to get their birth control paid for, which isn’t ok, and yes, $30 is cheap enough for anyone to afford.
Taking the abstract and applying that to justify free birth control for all is absurd.
If you want to have an exception for mothers who take it as part of a regimen to stop pregnancies in the event of health of baby or mother, that is one thing, you’re not asking for that. You’re asking for it to be provided to everyone.
Craig come of it, you let her demolish you on this, and she did.
You didn’t make good points at all, and some were down right shameful.
Her comparison DOES fly, with regards to insulin, and is in fact, a worse scenario in the way she makes it.
Women who need birth control for the purpose she mentioned should be allowed to get it on their plan.
There is no need to then apply the religious objections to it, as they don’t even apply in the Catholic Church I might add, for her abstract scenario.
However, this should not blanket apply SAK74, and I think you are darn well aware of this, and are making the abstract argument on purpose. Most people who take this are not women with your scenario.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Someone whose religious beliefs say women are inferior to men has down voted my post above!
I believe there is a war on women… very, very young women… and very, very young men; i.e. less than zero years old men and women.
You mean me?
War on women? Give me a break. I love how leftists get to co-opt the term “war on women” as though there is not a single woman in the United States that disagrees with the left’s platform on reproductive rights and abortion.
There is no war on women on this particular topic.
Good God the piousness.
Freedom of religion is as important is as the freedom from having religion imposed on one. In America we have the freedom to form and operate companies. Those companies must follow the laws and mandates of the sates and federal government in taxes, trade, employment law, liquor law, etc. I have seen business thrive and fail based on it’s religious freedom to be open or closed based on the days it chooses to observe it’s religion and beliefs. The federal government mandates health care coverage. Allowing a business to “self-select” which laws it will follow or not follow is more than argument over left vs. right or politics. This is not an argument about religion or abortion. At it’s core it is a basic principle that you must follow the same rules as set out by the government and imposed on all. If religion can be used as an excuse not to follow the rules/laws it’s a slippery slope. If you don’t want to provide contraception based on your religious belief don’t operate a company in America – it really is that simple. An exception for “religious belief” in ANY area open the flood gate to much larger challenges – would anyone argue it’s okay for an adult to sexually abuse a young child because his/her religion allows this practice? The constitution is an instrument of protection for all and the freedom of religion also means freedom from religion and there should be no “exceptions or exemptions”.
Viaggigirl: To summarize your argument: “religious freedoms must be subject to federal law.” The irony of course is that the first amendment’s purpose was–and is–to protect religious institutions from the federal government’s encroachment into religious freedoms. Comparing child molestation to Catholic institutions wanting to opt out of contraceptive laws is utterly ridiculous. You are basically saying “religious freedoms matter except when the federal government says they don’t.” The first amendment was intended to protect religious institutions from EXACTLY that type of vacuous logic.
Religious institutions, yes. Is Hobby Lobby really a “religious institution”? I jused to write religious institutions for 1 of the top 3 carriers in that market. We never went after bakeries or craft stores. Just because the owner is of a certain doctrine does not make the company a religious institution.
Definition
Churches, temples, mosques and other places of worship and institutions that exist to support and manage the practice of a specific set of religious beliefs.
Chik Fil A holding services this Sunday?
Hi Captain Planet: Hobby Lobby and Chick fil a are obviously not religious institutions, however, the first amendment simply states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Regardless of whether or not the institution is a private business or a religious institution, the owner’s rights are still protected by the constitution–the same goes for their employees.
“If you don’t want to provide contraception based on your religious belief don’t operate a company in America – it really is that simple” Ahh yes, the old ironic “go somewhere else” argument. Your views on religious freedom are Orwellian. You basically just stated: “if you disagree with my leftist interpretation of religious freedom then you need to leave.” By the way, Sandra Sotomayor herself would rip your little argument to shreds. This is exactly why the supreme court eviscerated the lower courts in Colorado in the Masters Bakery case–it is just pure antipathy towards any conservative religious opinion.
For the last time, I am a registered independent, not part of the Democratic party. Contraceptives are not abortions. In fact, with our first daughter, our doctor prescribed the pill so my wife could better regulate her cycle and allow us to conceive. Women are prescribed the pill for other reasons, too. And, they don’t always have boyfriends, let alone those who are going to pick up the bill. Some have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to feed their families and have nothing left to pay for contraceptives. These are the very people some on the right accuse of abusing the system. So, you would rather they continue to grow their family? SMH…
Who cares what you do personally? The issue is about the freedom of everyone in the country to do what their conscience and religion tells them they should do or not do?
You are either on the side of protecting that freedom or on the side of forcing them to do something they don’t believe in.
Dodging the real issue? What most people do.
Craig, there are so many times I do think the things you say have merit, however you are contradicting yourself. You open by saying “who cares what you do personally” yet isn’t it the employers PERSONAL beliefs that you want to be allowed to make the decision on whether or not they provide coverage for contraceptives to their employees? Why should my employers personal religious beliefs affect my medical care/coverage? I agree freedom should be protected but why is one persons personal religious beliefs more deserving of protection than someone else’s personally held beliefs? Rastas believe in smoking ganja (pot) as it opens their minds to Jah (their term for god). They do not believe in doing other drugs or using caffeine or drinking as those are considered poisons to their bodies. Given this, do you support legalizing pot for religious use? It is part of their religion and the conscience and religion tell them smoking is what they should be doing. Does my or your belief that pot should be illegal not infringe on their right to practice their religion?
I am in favor of any one being free to do anything that doesn’t have the side effect of hurting children. Allowing the miniscule number of Rastafarians in America to take THC products? No problem.
Legalizing recreational pot? Only if you pretend the evidence of mounting damage to underage people is non-existent (the Kangaroo approach: who cares about other people’s kids.)
How on earth is there any difference in legalizing pot for medical, religious or recreational purposes? How would children be hurt by legalizing recreational use and not hurt by legalizing medical or religious use? My question is actually serious and not meant disrespectfully or argumentatively. Personally I think it should not be legal in any way shape or form just because of the harmful effects I have seen it have on family and friends.
Because when society endorses any substance, which is what legal, recreational pot does – it endorses it as safe – then kids use at a much greater rate than before.
That is exactly what has happened nationwide over the past 10 years. Along with the fact the Black Market is bigger than ever (per the NY Times), contrary to what we were told by the Legalization crowd. More than 80% of the pot in California is black market, high-potency pot sold by Joe Schmo, your neighbor.
And so LOTS of kids are consuming THC products now, high-potency pot that causes loss of IQ, mental illness, paranoia, psychosis and car crashes.
But allowing ONLY the Rastafarians to do so would not be a society-wide endorsement that THC products are okay. It would not lead to greater access, both legal and black market. It wouldn’t put advertisements for THC products on billboards everywhere (but you can ban tobacco ads – try to connect those dots).
JULY 17, 2019 AT 8:03 PM
craig cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 0Thumb down 0
“Because when society endorses any substance…it endorses it as safe”
I’m so old, I remember the ads “I learned it from watching you”, “This is your brain on drugs, any questions”, all of the ads we currently see about tobacco use, and all the ads we see about drunk driving. Your premise is completely flawed. Any questions?
Okay, wise guy. Explain to me then why nationwide use of THC products are way up for people under age 21 over the last 10 years.
Prediction: Dodge. Avoid. Intellectual Integrity missing.
If you honestly think keeping pot legal will make kids/teens NOT smoke it you need have a talk with a group of typical teens. I am the mother of a teenager who has been told (as well as his friends he has grown up with) ANY drugs (as well as cigarettes and alcohol) are not good for you and should not be used especially when it is not legal to do so. Guess what…….he has used all three as have most of his friends. All of these kids have been taught from a very young age to NOT do any of these things and the dangers associated with them. They just don’t care. Our society is becoming one of instant gratification and for most of the youth today that is all they know so they try what they want. I don’t think legalizing pot has had as big an impact over the last 10 years as you think. My guess (yes I know it isn’t very scientific but I am going with mom intuition which has served me very well over the last almost 19 years) we are seeing up rise in use because kids want/expect instant gratification. They have no regard for consequences……we live in a society where there are no losers, everyone wins – when my son was caught at 16 smoking pot he was arrested and taken to the police station. I was called to come pick him up, my response to the officer was put his butt in a cell over night and let the consequences of his actions sink in. Guess what I learned, they can’t legally keep a minor and if I didn’t pick him up I would be arrested and charged with neglect…….crazy!
To get back on track with the actual article topic let me pose this question. If an employer doesn’t want to provide contraceptives to employees because they believe so deeply against the use of them should an employer be allowed to say they don’t want to allow their insurance plans to cover opiods because they lost a child due to an overdose? That parents consious
(sorry I accidentally hit post before I was finished)…….the parent who owns the business and provides the insurance may feel they can’t in good conscious allow anyone else to take an opiod as they may wind up addicted. That parent may be so morally against use of opiods they don’t take them either because their belief is so strong that they are harmful and should not be used.
If we allowed people to decide things for others based on their personally held beliefs and morals everything would end up banned!
If that is true (source required), I’d say due to the fact there are way more edible products available. Kids these days don’t like to smoke. So, if they can eat something and get those effects, they are more likely to try it. That, and it’s tougher to purchase alcohol illegally than it was ten years ago. Path of least resistance
That is actually a good point Captain. When I was in high school those of my friends that did drink could always find someone over 21 that was willing to buy them booze for their parties. Today there is a huge effort by law enforcement to crack down on giving alcohol to minors and the penalties imposed on the adult are quite significant. Most over the age of 21 just aren’t willing to risk it today. Walk into a local HS today and the students could probably rattle off 10 names of kids at the school they can buy or get pot from.
Craig wrote, “The issue is about the freedom of everyone in the country to do what their conscience and religion tells them they should do or not do?”
Feel the same way about Rastafarians, Craig? Can they do what their conscience and religion tells them to do without your opinion infiltrating their ways?
No one is forcing these owners to pop contraceptives. That’s their personal choice whether or not they want to take them. And, if they are for free will, they’ll certainly understand it is up to their employees to make their own choices. That’s freedom.
Wow, Kangaroo, you can’t truly be that logic-deficient can you?
You are advocating forcing people to DO something they don’t want to do, pay for someone else’s birth control. You are not trying to force them to TAKE birth control (and you are not trying to STOP anyone from doing anything, including the Rastafarians.)
The issue is freedom to NOT do something. Man, Kangaroo, no wonder you are on the left side of every issue; you can’t think straight.
“You are advocating forcing people to DO something they don’t want to do, pay for someone else’s birth control.”
Happens all the time in our society. I don’t want my tax dollars being spent on 45’s golf and watching Fox and Friends. Those same dollars go to the same man who uses The Lord’s name in vain, which is against my religion. But, I’m not going to get all snowflakey about it, either. Suck it up and move on.
What a mindless reply. Your objection to Trump’s golf has nothing to do with your religion. And I am sure you have plenty of religious friends who have used the Lord’s name in vain(right before you expressed supreme outrage I am certain, heh heh.)
Try to focus: the issue is Religious Freedom based on Religious Conviction (unless your religion is anti-golf dishonesty worship, I mean).
•
JUNE 25, 2019 AT 8:49 PM
Andrew G. Simpson says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
This is a reminder of the comment section rules that are meant to encourage civil discourse. In particular, please be advised that ad hominem or other personal attacks against other users are a violation of the rules of the forum, even when the attacks are included in otherwise on-topic comments. Personal attacks include targeting another with offensive, obscene, libelous, defamatory or threatening language or slurs; assigning false or unwanted labels to another; questioning another’s character, integrity, morals or intelligence; disclosing another’s personal information; or assuming or assigning to another user a particular political, personal, social, religious or other motive.
Also, comments that are part of extended and repetitive squabbles between two and/or among small cliques of commenters are also inappropriate use of this forum.
This forum is also to be used only in a noncommercial manner.
In short, please address topics and express opinions while refraining from labeling or negatively or falsely characterizing others with whom you may disagree. If you can’t state your view without insulting another user, don’t state it.
Users remain solely responsible for the content of their communications. Insurance Journal has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any forum comments or content.
Insurance Journal has the right to suspend access to the firm for those who violate the terms of participation.
What I posted is accurate; your logic is totally and completely missing. (So don’t cry to Mommy.)
“…personal attacks against other users are a violation of the rules of the forum, even when the attacks are included in otherwise on-topic comments…Personal attacks include targeting another with offensive, obscene, libelous, defamatory or threatening language or slurs; assigning false or unwanted labels to another; questioning another’s character, integrity, morals or intelligence…In short, please address topics and express opinions while refraining from labeling or negatively…characterizing others with whom you may disagree.”
It looks like you stepped out of bounds. It’s tough to score when you can’t stay on the playing field.
Man up. Your logic was faulty.
A federal judge on Sunday granted a request by more than a dozen states to temporarily block the Trump administration from putting into effect new rules that would make it easier for employers to deny women health insurance coverage for contraceptives.