What does religious freedom mean?

[Haiku]

To me, freedom of religion means that people get to believe what they wish and worship how they choose. It does not mean that people can invade the public sphere with discriminatory actions and claim they are protected by freedom of religion.

 

I am religious, and I am a minority religion. I have never felt that my religious freedom is threatened by the government. It's often other religious people who make me feel like they would infringe on my religious freedom (in the name of theirs, of course).

[FaithManor]

I cannot rightly lay claim to religious freedom if I do not equally defend that of others. Freedom to practice only a dominant or privileged religion is no freedom at all.

Yes, my freedom to practice my religion only goes so far as I do not deprive another person of his or her right to practice her religion or be free of religion in his/her own life.

 

My religious liberty does not trump another person's. Failure to champion religious freedom for others is immoral if I expect to continue exercising personal, religious liberty.

 

That said, no one's religious liberty extends to violations of another person's basic human rights either. 

[Joanne]

 

 

As someone's employer, I could not stop that employee from spending his/her paycheck how he/she wishes. But the government has no right to force me to pay for something that violates my religion.

I significant amount of my paycheck pays for my family's medical coverage. Whose values trump? The corporation or mine?

[Joanne]

I don't know about your family, but my husband's employer pays the overwhelming majority of our family's health insurance premium. I think it's something like an 80/20 split.

As part of a total compensation package.

 

Their contribution isn't "their" money. It is part of what they have agreed to do as a part of employing me.

[TranquilMind]

A lot of us have been noticing the same trends for years. It's not recent, and it's not fabricated either.

 

As an atheist, I'm very concerned about religious freedom, which exists for us too! Religious freedom, to me, means YOU can practice your faith (or not) - but you can't push it onto others. It seems to me that a lot of people are confused about that point, and seem to feel that their faith requires coercing others into sharing their faith, and the government should back them up.

 

How can one coerce others into "sharing their faith"? 

 

That doesn't even make sense.  You cannot control what others believe. 

 

One should not be forced to act against his own religious conscience, either by "coercing" another, whatever you mean by that, or by being coerced by another  to go against his own religious conscience, with government backing. 

 

It has to cut both ways. 

[TranquilMind]

If the employer pays money towards the employee's health insurance coverage, then the employer should have the right to opt out of funding non-emergency services for religious reasons. A blood transfusion to save the employee's life, no. But sterilization or contraception, yes.

 

As someone's employer, I could not stop that employee from spending his/her paycheck how he/she wishes. But the government has no right to force me to pay for something that violates my religion.

 

This. 

 

I don't care what others do, but don't force me to contribute to it if it is wrong (according to my faith) because you want to do it.

[TranquilMind]

Not the poster but going to try to answer.

Both people's beliefs are protected. The distinction is who is being forced to do what. In her example, the employer is opposed to paying for contraception or sterilization. The employee is still free to get those services, he/she has to pay for them.

 

To use a different illustration (and probably poor illustration but the coffee is still brewing), just because owning a handgun is legal and a person thinks it's his/her right to own one, no one should be forced to buy a handgun for him/her.

This, exactly.

Here is where coercion comes in.  Do whatever you want.  I do.  But I don't expect others to fund it for me if it violates their values. 

[TranquilMind]

But you are free to not have these procedures.  And you not having them does not interfere with my right to have them.  Companies rejecting to cover those things for religious reasons isn't about flexing their freedom.  It is about controlling other people's private lives. 

 

No, people are not controlled or prohibited from acquiring these procedures.  They simply can't force that company to pay for it. 

 

 

 

[Mergath]

No, people are not controlled or prohibited from acquiring these procedures.  They simply can't force that company to pay for it. 

 

 

 

 

How is the company paying the insurance company which covers BC different from the company paying the employee who then pays for BC? Either way the company is giving money to another entity, who is then using it to pay for birth control. Are we going to start banning employees from buying birth control now because the company would technically be paying for it?

[TranquilMind]

How is the company paying the insurance company which covers BC different from the company paying the employee who then pays for BC? Either way the company is giving money to another entity, who is then using it to pay for birth control. Are we going to start banning employees from buying birth control now because the company would technically be paying for it?

No, how is that logical?

 

The company can make it known what it offers in the manner of benefits. The person can do what he wants with that information.

 

None of this should be connected, anyway. People should buy insurance on a reasonable open market, like Germany. But that would be a pay cut.

[ktgrok]

Is anybody FORCING employees to go work at a religiously-affiliated employer? The employee's acceptance of a job offer from the religious employer rather than a secular one means that they have CHOSEN to place themselves in a position where they need to concern themselves with the teachings of the affiliated faith. Don't like what the Catholic Church teaches about contraception? Don't work for a Catholic hospital, college, etc.

 

By that same token, no one is forcing the business owner to be in business! Or to offer health insurance. They could pay the fine instead, or just not be in business, if following the law regarding insurance violates their religious beliefs. Yes, that would be an inconvenience. Sometimes religious beliefs are inconvenient. 

[ktgrok]

There is no situation where a person will die if she doesn't get her tubes tied or birth control pills. There are ways to 100% avoid the chance of pregnancy that do not involve using sterilization or contraception. The individual may not LIKE that option, in which case she is free to use her own money on elective procedures/medications. Again, the convenience of the individual does not trump the right of the religious person to not fund something that violates his/her religious beliefs.

 

 

And there are ways to 100 percent avoid paying for someone else's birth control, including not owning a business. Of course, they individual may not LIKE the option of closing their business.....

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

 

Medical insurance through an employer is a form of compensation instead of cold hard cash.

 

The employee, not the company, is paying for the insurance.

[6packofun]

 It also means that others should be free FROM religions they do not practice, and in that sense, I think that religious freedom should be limited to private expression and kept entirely out of the public sphere.

 

This is where it gets murky, though.  I basically agree that no one should have religion or religious expression forced upon them, but what people feel is "forced" varies widely from no evangelizing if I ask you to cut it out to not using public property to preach in any way to I shouldn't have to even hear the practice of another person's faith in a public place even if it's not directed at me.

[Carol in Cal.]

And there are ways to 100 percent avoid paying for someone else's birth control, including not owning a business. Of course, they individual may not LIKE the option of closing their business.....

I have no personal objection to birth control, but I think it's un-American and even anti-American to force people to choose between owning a business or exercising their faith.  There need to be meaningful workaround for situations like that.

 

And again, I don't have that particular issue, but I'm sympathetic to those, mostly Catholics, who do.  It's the principle of the thing.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[Joanne]

Medical insurance through an employer is a form of compensation instead of cold hard cash.

 

The employee, not the company, is paying for the insurance.

 

That's what I said.

[Janeway]

Religious freedom means the right to practice ones faith within a confines that does not harm or inhibits another's. Having a nativity scene in public does not harm someone else nor does praying in public or otherwise.

 

That being said, I think burkas are abuse. Also, women and children are murdered and abused under the excuse of Islam. It has become a mainstream religion that we are supposed to accept. I think we are being told to accept the autrocities because they are such a large group. Honor killing are real and happen in the US. They are accepted enough in the Muslim community that the people will cover for each other and hide each other when it happens. Just this year, I dealt with a Muslim young woman who would have been killed by her male relatives if they found out she was pregnant. She was not married. She had to abort or face certain death if found out. This is here, in the US. It's not ok. This is not my only example of things that happen.

 

I am not a Christian, but I am ok with most religions. But I am not ok with Islam.

 

Also, gun rights are not a religion issue.

[Joanne]

I have no personal objection to birth control, but I think it's un-American and even anti-American to force people to choose between owning a business or exercising their faith.  There need to be meaningful workaround for situations like that.

 

And again, I don't have that particular issue, but I'm sympathetic to those, mostly Catholics, who do.  It's the principle of the thing.

 

They *can* exercise their faith. What they are doing, though, it exercising control.

 

I don't understand how Hobby Lobby is a protected class like a special snowflake company but individuals are not free to chose the products (health services) using funds they *earn* (part of compensation) from a vendor (the insurance company.)

 

That is NOT freedom of religion.

 

(what it is is controlling women's sexuality once again, but that's a different thread. kinda)

[Ausmumof3]

I'm right there with you.

 

As a Christian, I just keep in mind that Jesus said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's," even though Tiberius wasn't exactly a paragon of peace and justice.

Yes this.

[Janeway]

Also, I have never known of any company getting away with not paying for birth control. I only know of the Hobby Lobby where they only didn't pay for a certain type of birth control. But on that note, why does anyone think a persons employer should have to pay for birth control? When I want birth control, I pay for it, myself. With my own money. We are bringing up such an entitled generation. Politicians want to get the vote so they promise stuff. Then people get in their heads they are entitled and shouldn't have to earn anything. It's a vicious cycle and it can eventually collapse an economy.

[Joanne]

Religious freedom means the right to practice ones faith within a confines that does not harm or inhibits another's. Having a nativity scene in public does not harm someone else nor does praying in public or otherwise.

 

That being said, I think burkas are abuse. Also, women and children are murdered and abused under the excuse of Islam. It has become a mainstream religion that we are supposed to accept. I think we are being told to accept the autrocities because they are such a large group. Honor killing are real and happen in the US. They are accepted enough in the Muslim community that the people will cover for each other and hide each other when it happens. Just this year, I dealt with a Muslim young woman who would have been killed by her male relatives if they found out she was pregnant. She was not married. She had to abort or face certain death if found out. This is here, in the US. It's not ok. This is not my only example of things that happen.

 

I am not a Christian, but I am ok with most religions. But I am not ok with Islam.

 

Also, gun rights are not a religion issue.

 

Actually, I disagree with your first paragraph, although I think "harm" is a bit strong. Oh, I just re-read your post. I believe that a nativity scene on private property, but visible to the public is ok.

 

I don't believe in burkas, but I can't go down the rest of that paragraph with you. I don't believe in ANY religion which one-downs women and celebrates "virginity." That covers 2 I can think of. I support the right to wear a burka, though. I can't image it is pleasant or even safe to do so in the US.

 

Islam IS a major, mainstream religion.

 

 

[Joanne]

Also, I have never known of any company getting away with not paying for birth control. I only know of the Hobby Lobby where they only didn't pay for a certain type of birth control. But on that note, why does anyone think a persons employer should have to pay for birth control? When I want birth control, I pay for it, myself. With my own money. We are bringing up such an entitled generation. Politicians want to get the vote so they promise stuff. Then people get in their heads they are entitled and shouldn't have to earn anything. It's a vicious cycle and it can eventually collapse an economy.

 

My health benefits are my own money. I work my ass off for them.

Where do you get entitlement from this? Are we talking about providing a new car, college education, and a credit card? I'm pretty sure the majority of (able) adults of working age.....work.

[Ausmumof3]

I think religious rights are most likely to be threatened where there is most likely to be a conflict between religion and the public interest. Most people don't mind what you do in your own home or mosque or church but they do care about what happens that impacts on them and probably they care about what happens to the kids. So no one cares if you want to teach religion to your kids but they don't want their kids sitting through a religious class. The trouble is where people identify all people of a religious group as homogenous instead of understanding differences.

[Janeway]

They *can* exercise their faith. What they are doing, though, it exercising control.

 

I don't understand how Hobby Lobby is a protected class like a special snowflake company but individuals are not free to chose the products (health services) using funds they *earn* (part of compensation) from a vendor (the insurance company.)

 

That is NOT freedom of religion.

 

(what it is is controlling women's sexuality once again, but that's a different thread. kinda)

I have private insurance. They tell me which medications they will pay for and which doctors they will pay for. Why should birth control be any different? Because birth control is a delicate princess thing and nothing else is? Cancer, Lupus, Autism, stroke, fertility, cardiac, etc etc etc...those things are just not as delicate or important as which birth control someone uses? No one told a woman which birth control she is allowed to use. They only told her they would not pay for it, she will have to pay for it herself.

[Ausmumof3]

Religious freedom means the right to practice ones faith within a confines that does not harm or inhibits another's. Having a nativity scene in public does not harm someone else nor does praying in public or otherwise.

 

That being said, I think burkas are abuse. Also, women and children are murdered and abused under the excuse of Islam. It has become a mainstream religion that we are supposed to accept. I think we are being told to accept the autrocities because they are such a large group. Honor killing are real and happen in the US. They are accepted enough in the Muslim community that the people will cover for each other and hide each other when it happens. Just this year, I dealt with a Muslim young woman who would have been killed by her male relatives if they found out she was pregnant. She was not married. She had to abort or face certain death if found out. This is here, in the US. It's not ok. This is not my only example of things that happen.

 

I am not a Christian, but I am ok with most religions. But I am not ok with Islam.

 

Also, gun rights are not a religion issue.

Why would a burka be considered abuse if a woman wears it of her own free will? If she is forced to I can see that being abuse! Heck I think being culturally compelled to wear a bra is abuse! Lol...

[Amira]

Religious freedom means the right to practice ones faith within a confines that does not harm or inhibits another's. Having a nativity scene in public does not harm someone else nor does praying in public or otherwise.

 

That being said, I think burkas are abuse. Also, women and children are murdered and abused under the excuse of Islam. It has become a mainstream religion that we are supposed to accept. I think we are being told to accept the autrocities because they are such a large group. Honor killing are real and happen in the US. They are accepted enough in the Muslim community that the people will cover for each other and hide each other when it happens. Just this year, I dealt with a Muslim young woman who would have been killed by her male relatives if they found out she was pregnant. She was not married. She had to abort or face certain death if found out. This is here, in the US. It's not ok. This is not my only example of things that happen.

 

I am not a Christian, but I am ok with most religions. But I am not ok with Islam.

 

Also, gun rights are not a religion issue.

If you're not okay with Islam, does that mean you think that Muslims shouldn't be able to practice their religion in the US?

 

I completely agree that no one of any religion should be able to break the law and not be punished because of freedom of religion, but that's not specific to Islam.

[Joanne]

I have private insurance. They tell me which medications they will pay for and which doctors they will pay for. Why should birth control be any different? Because birth control is a delicate princess thing and nothing else is? Cancer, Lupus, Autism, stroke, fertility, cardiac, etc etc etc...those things are just not as delicate or important as which birth control someone uses? No one told a woman which birth control she is allowed to use. They only told her they would not pay for it, she will have to pay for it herself.

 

No comparison. The health insurance company is managing their business costs.

 

Companies restricting medical care - the choice of women (or couples) to make medical decisions with their own money - based on religion.

[Carol in Cal.]

They *can* exercise their faith. What they are doing, though, it exercising control.

 

 

No, they are not controlling what their employees do.  Rather they are avoiding being forced to pay for something that goes against their consciences, which had not been the case until the ACA.

 

And re. Hobby Lobby, it's not a publicly held company, but rather a closely held business--that's why the standards were different for it than for public corporations.

[Amira]

But an employer doesn't even know if an employee is using birth control. Beyond that, the employer is only paying the insurance premium. The insurance company is the one who covers the costs of the birth control, not the employer. The employer is just paying the fee to access insurance coverage, not going out and buying birth control for anyone.

[SereneHome]

No, they are not controlling what their employees do.  Rather they are avoiding being forced to pay for something that goes against their consciences, which had not been the case until the ACA.

 

And re. Hobby Lobby, it's not a publicly held company, but rather a closely held business--that's why the standards were different for it than for public corporations.

 

I didn't know that.  This is interesting.  Then how is that bakery in OR had to pay fine for not making a wedding cake for a gay couple.  It was definitely not a public corporation.

[Amira]

I didn't know that. This is interesting. Then how is that bakery in OR had to pay fine for not making a wedding cake for a gay couple. It was definitely not a public corporation.

Because that was an entirely different legal question. Since sexual orientation is a protected class in Oregon, the baker couldn't deny service based on the customers' sexual orientation. That was a public accommodation question.

[KarenNC]

Religious freedom means the right to practice ones faith within a confines that does not harm or inhibits another's. Having a nativity scene in public does not harm someone else nor does praying in public or otherwise.

 

That being said, I think burkas are abuse. Also, women and children are murdered and abused under the excuse of Islam. It has become a mainstream religion that we are supposed to accept. I think we are being told to accept the autrocities because they are such a large group. Honor killing are real and happen in the US. They are accepted enough in the Muslim community that the people will cover for each other and hide each other when it happens. Just this year, I dealt with a Muslim young woman who would have been killed by her male relatives if they found out she was pregnant. She was not married. She had to abort or face certain death if found out. This is here, in the US. It's not ok. This is not my only example of things that happen.

 

I am not a Christian, but I am ok with most religions. But I am not ok with Islam.

 

Also, gun rights are not a religion issue.

 

In the US, there's a difference between "having a nativity scene in public" when paid for and set up by a religious group or individual on their own property and "having a nativity scene in public" when paid for by taxpayer funds and set up by an arm of the government on government property. Likewise, there is a difference between "praying in public'" when done by an individual or group acting as private citizens and "praying in public" when done by a government agent acting in his/her capacity as a government agent and as part of an official government activity, particularly when it is phrased as being on behalf of all in attendance (which turns it into a participatory act of worship). The first is exercising one's individual freedom of religion, the other is government endorsement of a specific religion and can be a subtle or not so subtle act of intimidation toward those not part of the "in-group" -- a reminder of which group holds power in the situation.

 

It's always struck me that I do not hear the people who rail against Muslim women covering their heads (of their own free will) also railing against nuns, married Orthodox Jewish women, Sikhs, the various Christian groups who also have female members who cover their heads (presumably also of their own free will) or even Buddhist monks and nuns who choose to shave their heads. If you can understand that a nun or married Orthodox Jewish woman may choose to cover her hair to follow the tenets of their religion, why is it hard to understand that a Muslim woman may also make that sort of choice, especially in the US where there is so much societal pressure not to cover?

 

Honor killings and other atrocities are just that---atrocities regardless of the religion, are independent of whether women wear head coverings, and should be dealt with as such.

 

Gun control is absolutely a religious issue for me, as it is a social justice issue and my religion is heavily based in working on social justice.

Edited July 1, 2016 by KarenNC

[Frances]

I have private insurance. They tell me which medications they will pay for and which doctors they will pay for. Why should birth control be any different? Because birth control is a delicate princess thing and nothing else is? Cancer, Lupus, Autism, stroke, fertility, cardiac, etc etc etc...those things are just not as delicate or important as which birth control someone uses? No one told a woman which birth control she is allowed to use. They only told her they would not pay for it, she will have to pay for it herself.

Personally, I think birth control is one of the most important public health benefits a society can provide. Giving people the knowledge and means to plan their families benefits all of us, but especially innocent children. Why wouldn't we want every child to be born to parents who are ready to parent? I'd happily pay higher taxes or higher health insurance premiums to make family planning resources cheaply and readily available to everyone.

 

Plus, under the Affordable Care Act, lots of things are required to be covered, not just birth control.

[Audrey]

Is anybody FORCING employees to go work at a religiously-affiliated employer? The employee's acceptance of a job offer from the religious employer rather than a secular one means that they have CHOSEN to place themselves in a position where they need to concern themselves with the teachings of the affiliated faith. Don't like what the Catholic Church teaches about contraception? Don't work for a Catholic hospital, college, etc.

 

Excuse me?  I didn't say anything about employment choices. 

Quite frankly, though, I don't think religions should be allowed to be involved in health care or education in the public sphere at all.  Private school, fine.  But I am strongly opposed to the Catholic school divisions prevalent in some provinces here.  They are holdovers from an outmoded way of life.  I think any type of religious health care is crossing the line in every instance. 

[Joker]

I have two teen dds. One needs birth control and it has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. She's not active and even if she was it wouldn't matter because she's gay. She needs it to help control her crazy heavy bleeding and resulting anemia. It's medically necessary and companies that serve the public shouldn't get to decide whether they are covered or not. If they want to offer insurance that's great, but what's medically necessary should be up to her and her doctors. The company she works for should have zero input.

[Audrey]

I find this view shocking. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to wear my head covering in public? What about praying in public? What about reading Scripture aloud in public, as I saw someone doing a few years ago? 

 

Can you elaborate on this? 

 

Yes, I can elaborate.  First, let me explain the difference between the "public sphere" and "being in public."  This is an important distinction.  I am sure you understand the idea of "being in public" as being seen outside of your home and going about your daily business.  This is not at all the same thing as "the public sphere" which is (and I quote from Wikipedia's entry on Public Sphere) "a discursive space in which individuals and groups associate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment about them." 

 

And, so to elaborate: You wearing symbols and clothing of your religion out in public is just you going about your life, and that is acceptable in my previously described ideal.  However, you inserting your religious ideology into the discussions of how society at large should operate and live is not acceptable in my previously described ideal.  Religious opinions --- all religious opinions equally -- have no place in the discussion of governance or development of the larger society.  That is my contention. 

[Audrey]

I would assume she meant public as stuff like meetings of Congress and not just people hanging around at a public park having a picnic. 

 

 

Well, leave it to you to put it so much more concisely. :) 

 

I did purposefully and specifically choose the term "public sphere."  It has a very specific definition and it is not interchangable with "in public."   

 

But, then... you obviously understand that. :)

[Anacharsis]

Religious freedom for communities is often dependent on others recognizing the community as a self-governing body distinct from the viewer. If Italy suddenly decided that Vatican City was too small to be a real country, that really it was just a group of wrong-headed Italians, then it would seem like simple social welfare to correct those Vatican City residents when their norms differed from Italian ones (even if that simple social welfare ultimately involved threats of punishment for noncompliance).

 

For individuals, I think Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he noted that forced compliance may bring the illusion of harmony, but "tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness", since the reason for compliance isn't a change of heart but just to avoid the punishment. There is also the problem of turning norms into laws. Norms are dynamic and community-based. Laws are specific and based on the consensus of the drafter and signers. So attempts to turn norms into laws always leave a little to be desired.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Anacharsis

[Mergath]

Also, I have never known of any company getting away with not paying for birth control. I only know of the Hobby Lobby where they only didn't pay for a certain type of birth control. But on that note, why does anyone think a persons employer should have to pay for birth control? When I want birth control, I pay for it, myself. With my own money. We are bringing up such an entitled generation. Politicians want to get the vote so they promise stuff. Then people get in their heads they are entitled and shouldn't have to earn anything. It's a vicious cycle and it can eventually collapse an economy.

 

Expecting health insurance to do what it's supposed to and cover prescription medications makes one entitled? That's a new one.

[Carrie12345]

I have no personal objection to birth control, but I think it's un-American and even anti-American to force people to choose between owning a business or exercising their faith.  There need to be meaningful workaround for situations like that.

 

And again, I don't have that particular issue, but I'm sympathetic to those, mostly Catholics, who do.  It's the principle of the thing.

 

I think it's un-American to have to choose between sex and employment.  Or between birthing children and unemployment.  Or simply knowing that an employer could have that much impact on my reproductive life.

 

It's been ages since I've paid for any form of birth control but, IIRC, the doctor visits to get the bc were more expensive than the birth control itself.  And the insurance still has to pay for those, right?  So that's slightly amusing.

[MSNative]

I think it's un-American to have to choose between sex and employment. Or between birthing children and unemployment. Or simply knowing that an employer could have that much impact on my reproductive life.

 

It's been ages since I've paid for any form of birth control but, IIRC, the doctor visits to get the bc were more expensive than the birth control itself. And the insurance still has to pay for those, right? So that's slightly amusing.

But no one is saying that. Again, the issue is who is going to pay for it, not whether someone can buy it.

Personally I think it is stupid that we have to go to the dr to get a script and then return every year for it. PP and many college clinics just hand them out without any sort of health screening or follow up and people don't seem to be dying on the streets or going on BC benders.

I think a lot of this could become a non-issue if we simply got drs and health insurance out of it. If it became something more like cold medicine- in ease of purchasing and in cost.

 

Wrt the hobby lobby case, HL actually covers most of the forms of bc that most people mentioned:

 

Male condoms, Female condoms, Diaphragms with spermicide, Sponges with spermicide, Cervical caps with spermicide, Spermicide alone, Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill), Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill), Birth control pills (extended/continuous use), Contraceptive patches, Contraceptive rings, Progestin injections, Implantable rods, Vasectomies, Female sterilization surgeries, Female sterilization implants

 

 

It didn't cover 4 specific types: Plan B (“The Morning After Pillâ€), Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraceptionâ€), Copper Intra-Uterine Device, IUD with progestine

Edited July 1, 2016 by MSNative

[ktgrok]

I have no personal objection to birth control, but I think it's un-American and even anti-American to force people to choose between owning a business or exercising their faith.  There need to be meaningful workaround for situations like that.

 

And again, I don't have that particular issue, but I'm sympathetic to those, mostly Catholics, who do.  It's the principle of the thing.

 

For the record, there WAS a work around offered. The Federal government would handle it. All the Catholic organization had to do was send in a form stating they refuse to provide the employee with birth control. But the Catholic organizations refused to do even that, stating that because they knew that the government would then provide it they couldn't in good faith even send the form stating they refused to provide it. 

 

I'm sorry, that's getting to the level of crazy. At that point it isn't about you providing it, it is about denying it to others. (and I'm Catholic!)

 

You are telling people "Hey, no one says you have to work that job" if they want birth control. I'm saying the very same thing....no one says you have to work that job. The only difference is one person's job is as an employee and one is as an employer, but either way, no one forced them to have that job. If they don't want to follow the laws, choose a different job. Be a manager instead of an owner. Whatever. 

[ktgrok]

Also, I have never known of any company getting away with not paying for birth control. I only know of the Hobby Lobby where they only didn't pay for a certain type of birth control. But on that note, why does anyone think a persons employer should have to pay for birth control? When I want birth control, I pay for it, myself. With my own money. We are bringing up such an entitled generation. Politicians want to get the vote so they promise stuff. Then people get in their heads they are entitled and shouldn't have to earn anything. It's a vicious cycle and it can eventually collapse an economy.

 

Um, they ARE earning it. They are earning insurance coverage by working. If there was no insurance benefits their salary would rise instead. Insurance is part of a compensation package they EARNED. 

[Carrie12345]

But no one is saying that. Again, the issue is who is going to pay for it, not whether someone can buy it.

Personally I think it is stupid that we have to go to the dr to get a script and then return every year for it. PP and many college clinics just hand them out without any sort of health screening or follow up and people don't seem to be dying on the streets or going on BC benders.

I think a lot of this could become a non-issue if we simply got drs and health insurance out of it. If it became something more like cold medicine- in ease of purchasing and in cost.

 

Wrt the hobby lobby case, HL actually covers most of the forms of bc that most people mentioned:

 

Male condoms, Female condoms, Diaphragms with spermicide, Sponges with spermicide, Cervical caps with spermicide, Spermicide alone, Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill), Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill), Birth control pills (extended/continuous use), Contraceptive patches, Contraceptive rings, Progestin injections, Implantable rods, Vasectomies, Female sterilization surgeries, Female sterilization implants

 

 

It didn't cover 4 specific types: Plan B (“The Morning After Pillâ€), Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraceptionâ€), Copper Intra-Uterine Device, IUD with progestine

 

I completely agree with you that the system needs to be changed, but that's not what we're working with right now.  Until we get there, if we ever get there, people are impacted.

 

My personal experience with PP was not like receiving candy.  It was identical to all my fancy shmancy OB/GYN/MW exams.

 

I do hope you're right on the HL details, which would be better than what I thought, though I still disapprove of an employer having any control over anyone's uterus.  My birth control needs were complex before vasectomy.  I'm allergic to latex.  BC pills are contraindicated.  I did have to pay OOP for an IUD in 2005-ish, and it was a serious financial hardship for us at the time.  I can only imagine if I were an hourly cashier.  But it was clearly more attainable than the care and keeping of another person or 3.  Without that option, I suppose we could have gone with the V and not had our last two children when we were more financially stable.

[ktgrok]

I have private insurance. They tell me which medications they will pay for and which doctors they will pay for. Why should birth control be any different? Because birth control is a delicate princess thing and nothing else is? Cancer, Lupus, Autism, stroke, fertility, cardiac, etc etc etc...those things are just not as delicate or important as which birth control someone uses? No one told a woman which birth control she is allowed to use. They only told her they would not pay for it, she will have to pay for it herself.

 

Because some things were voted into law as being preventative care that are required to be offered by all insurance companies. That includes physicals, vaccinations, mammograms, etc. These are things that effect public health and we have a vested interest, as a country, in providing. 

 

If there was no law about this, you'd be right. But there is. People are wanting the right to violate the law based on their religious beliefs. Would people be as supportive of Muslims being allowed to violate the law based on their beliefs? Or anyone else?

 

If you think the law is wrong, fine, ask your congresspeople to work on changing the law so that birth control isn't considered preventative care and isn't included. Go for it. But that's not the issue here. The issue is, can someone disobey the law just because they feel it is in conflict with their religious belief? Doesn't matter what law it is, the principal is the same. If we say yes, they can violate this law, we would be saying they can violate ANY law, as long as that is in line with their religious beliefs. 

 

Alhough, a separate but related argument is, can a corporation HAVe a religious belief at all?

[Carrie12345]

I have private insurance. They tell me which medications they will pay for and which doctors they will pay for. Why should birth control be any different? Because birth control is a delicate princess thing and nothing else is? Cancer, Lupus, Autism, stroke, fertility, cardiac, etc etc etc...those things are just not as delicate or important as which birth control someone uses? No one told a woman which birth control she is allowed to use. They only told her they would not pay for it, she will have to pay for it herself.

 

For the record, I disapprove of that, too.

 

I'm in a CAM walker right now.  My insurance would have covered a wheelchair, cane, or walker in full, but they didn't cover my boot at all. Not one penny.  It cost me $250 to wear for (hopefully) one week.  ONE WEEK.  I promise I am appropriately outraged.

[MercyA]

Yes, I can elaborate.  First, let me explain the difference between the "public sphere" and "being in public."  This is an important distinction.  I am sure you understand the idea of "being in public" as being seen outside of your home and going about your daily business.  This is not at all the same thing as "the public sphere" which is (and I quote from Wikipedia's entry on Public Sphere) "a discursive space in which individuals and groups associate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment about them." 

 

And, so to elaborate: You wearing symbols and clothing of your religion out in public is just you going about your life, and that is acceptable in my previously described ideal.  However, you inserting your religious ideology into the discussions of how society at large should operate and live is not acceptable in my previously described ideal.  Religious opinions --- all religious opinions equally -- have no place in the discussion of governance or development of the larger society.  That is my contention. 

 

Thank you, Audrey. Obviously I wasn't reading closely enough. That's what I get for replying before coffee.  :blushing:

 

However, I did have in mind, as one example, the French law which prohibits girls from wearing their religious coverings in public schools. I'm curious--what is your view on that?

 

I can't agree that I should be required to leave my religion out of discussions of public policies. I am certainly able to make completely secular arguments against war, against abortion, and about other issues which are important to me, and I am always willing to do so. In fact, I think it's more effective in our society. However, the right to free speech means I currently do have the right to make any argument I please, in the public sphere. You are equally free to reject it, of course.  :001_smile:

Edited July 1, 2016 by MercyA

[MercyA]

That being said, I think burkas are abuse.

 

As a Christian women who covers, I do want to point out that women may choose to wear burkas of their own free will. I think this comic makes the point well (and, yes, I know it depicts a hijab and not a burka).

 

It's always struck me that I do not hear the people who rail against Muslim women covering their heads (of their own free will) also railing against nuns, married Orthodox Jewish women, Sikhs, the various Christian groups who also have female members who cover their heads (presumably also of their own free will) or even Buddhist monks and nuns who choose to shave their heads. If you can understand that a nun or married Orthodox Jewish woman may choose to cover her hair to follow the tenets of their religion, why is it hard to understand that a Muslim woman may also make that sort of choice, especially in the US where there is so much societal pressure not to cover?

 

Yes, exactly.

Edited July 1, 2016 by MercyA

[Laura Corin]

Even in a system though where insurance companies aren't  abig issue, there still are decisions made about what to cover, and to a large degree, they still come down to what people's ethical and moral beliefs are.  Something like human cloning, or genetic manipulation of humans - these aren't much a practical issue in medicine for people seeking treatment, but could be soon, and they are issues in science.

 

Some of the questions are practical - what could go wrong - but a lot of them come down to things like - how do we value others?  What does it mean to be a human being?  What kind of way of life honours those principles and what doesn't?  Does this practice fall within that, or outside it? 

 

 

When the UK needed to draft a bill on Human Fertility and Embryology some years ago, they called in a moral philosopher to lead the task.  Values are definitely involved, but are they necessarily religious values?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Warnock,_Baroness_Warnock#Public_policy

[Amira]

A federal judge has blocked a new Mississippi state law about religious freedom from taking effect.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-blocks-mississippi-religious-objection-law-1467354529

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/01/484291451/judge-blocks-mississippi-law-protecting-religious-objections-to-gay-marriage

 

The law would have specifically protected three beliefs about sex and gender, but the judge said that was unconstitutional because "the state has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others."

 

The judge also said that the provision stating that a religious organization couldn't be punished for not performing same-sex marriages is redundant because that right is already well-protected under the First Amendment.

 

Opinions?

Edited July 1, 2016 by Amira