Shanghai Alice
Exiled to Siberia
- 1,069
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Section Eight
- Seen May 19, 2012
As I'm sure... Well, actually, I'd be surprised if most people knew about this, as it's fairly under the radar, the U.S. government has backed the Affordable Care Act, ruling it valid just last week.
Sauce
Of course, I know there are many differing opinions on the topic of abortion and contraception, and this isn't the thread for such an argument.
The question being addressed is, is the bill constitutional? Should religious organizations be forced to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with? Or should such things be done away with, in favor of what the majority wants?
Before anyone brings it up, the "religious exemption" being offered with the bill only covers organizations where 100% of the employees are believers of X faith. Of course, the argument could be made that "it's unfair to the one person", but how much weight should we put on that? Does one person negate the beliefs of an entire organization?
Should the law be upheld even when it conflicts with moral beliefs? Or should moral beliefs be upheld even when they conflict with the law?
Discuss.
Sauce
We can all agree that universal health care makes sense in that every American should be insured. That's why I can understand a defense of President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, commonly known as "Obamacare." However, there are some shocking regulations that come with this reform which we should all be aware of, as they threaten one of our most basic human rights.
The details of the Obamacare act are being outlined under the Department of Health and Human Services. Under new provisions, which could take effect later this year, both public and private health care plans are required to cover preventative acts. This means surgical sterilization, all methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, education and counseling must now be covered by health care, as mandated by the HHS.
This presents a problem. A number of these forms of contraceptives - including the "morning after" pill - may cause an already fertilized and implanted egg to die, thus destroying a human life as it begins its development into a child. Also included are surgical sterilizations, which make it impossible for pregnancies to occur in the first place.
So why are these new HHS rulings such a big deal? First of all, we will all be paying for them, either in the insurance policy we'll have to buy or the taxes we'll have to pay. We are required by law to be insured, so that means everyone will be forced to pay for these policies in one way or another.
This is where the HHS rulings violate an essential freedom. The Obama administration is mandating that Americans' insurance plans cover specific practices. Unfortunately, those practices force people who respect the sanctity of human life to disobey their beliefs. There are few exemptions to the HHS rulings, which will allow some religious employers, such as a Catholic parish, to qualify. But most Catholics will be obliged under penalty of law to pay for what their church teaches is immoral. And a number of Catholic hospitals, organizations and schools will be faced with a tough choice: Either violate their principles in order to insure their employees, or face the consequences of breaking the law.
Another problem is that surgical sterilizations are being treated like necessary medical surgeries. We have to realize what we're talking about here: Pregnancy is not a disease. Neither is fertility. Rather, they are normal, healthy states of being. Why are we covering and forcing Americans to cover procedures that typically aren't necessary? Would you expect your boss to pay for your Botox injections?
These proposed changes by HHS are not in effect yet; if enough objections are brought up, their passage could be stalled. There are many Catholic organizations that will fight this, as will other religious organizations. But this grim future of squashed religious freedom will be our fate unless we do something about it.
An article published Friday, Jan. 20, on thinkprogress.org called these changes a "huge victory for women's health." But when the government is able to force us to ignore our personal and religious beliefs, I can't see how anyone wins.
Of course, I know there are many differing opinions on the topic of abortion and contraception, and this isn't the thread for such an argument.
The question being addressed is, is the bill constitutional? Should religious organizations be forced to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with? Or should such things be done away with, in favor of what the majority wants?
Before anyone brings it up, the "religious exemption" being offered with the bill only covers organizations where 100% of the employees are believers of X faith. Of course, the argument could be made that "it's unfair to the one person", but how much weight should we put on that? Does one person negate the beliefs of an entire organization?
Should the law be upheld even when it conflicts with moral beliefs? Or should moral beliefs be upheld even when they conflict with the law?
Discuss.