Affordable Care Act and the Religious Exemption

Hows about the fact that, in the case of Catholic hospitals, the items are contrary to their mission and purpose?

Of course, that raises the question of "Should one employee's lack of protest invalidate the 98% that do have objections?"

TRIFORCE89 said:

Will an employee at a Catholic hospital necessarily always seek treatment at that very same hospital? Or any hospital employee for that matter, not just Catholic. I don't think there's a guarantee that they will seek treatment where they work. Maybe they commute to work, but in the case of medical need its too out of the way. While the Catholic hospital may not carry these items or perform these procedures (is this protected under this legislation by the way? I'm assuming it is) and may only want to provide insurance for the services the offer, there is no reason their employees can't seek medical service elsewhere that does offer those services - in which case they would require the insurance.

Click to expand...

See, that's the alternative being discussed, if the workplaces just threw up their hands and, rather than withholding paychecks for insurance, allowed the employees to purchase the insurance.

That's a whole 'nother can of worms entirely,though.

Shanghai Alice said:

So, if I pay for everything in healthcare, save for the one thing I disagree with, I should be denied healthcare entirely?

Click to expand...

If you want to opt out of the program, then you shouldn't get any benefits of the program.

The issue isn't a tax that funds only abortions. The issue is that the tax will provide fund for all/alotof medical procedures and preventive measures, some of which will be ones you disagree with.

Unless it has already been decided, right now, what funds will go where then it will essentially be impossible to determine what percentage of your tax will fund what type of procedure. But currently, funding for insurance is usually variable so the amount of overall funds, and the distribution of those funds will change year to year.

In the end you either have to deal with it, or completely opt out of the program. While your money might not be funding abortions, its still funding a program that supports abortions.

Perhaps I was unclear earlier.

It's not so much the tax that's irking me, but more of the fact that insurance companies will be required to offer this. Because everyone is now required to have insurance, everyone will now be required to provide for contraception.

A simple solution would be to allow insurance companies to offer an individual package for conscientious objectors that does not include the offending items. Honestly, I'm clueless as to why our government doesn't simply allow that.

American politics at work, I guess. :/

1. Contraception and other forms of birth control should be made readily available to those who wish to become sexually active. It is a woman's right to her own body. Others, especially those without uteri, have no ground denying women the basic privilege of birth control/contraception. These products are about as offensive as vaccinations, prescription drugs, and facial care.

2. It's all or nothing. We didn't keep *some* establishes Whites only in order to pander to those who believed that the White man and the Negro could not intermingle. We should not allow the option for people to not pay their fair share for insurance because they find it "objectionable" to their beliefs. People paying for healthcare infringes upon no one's rights.

jpp8 said:

These products are about as offensive as vaccinations, prescription drugs, and facial care.

Click to expand...

See, here you have the advantage, because arguing this would require me to use religious beliefs, all of which you would just refute with, "Lol Commienazies are invalid".

Still, contraception, sterilization, and abortion are not "about as offensive as vaccinations, prescription drugs, and facial care". They remove the possibility of human life or, in the latter case, kill human life. Of course, this is not an abortion thread, so the previous sentence was simply my humble opinion.

2. It's all or nothing. We didn't keep *some* establishes Whites only in order to pander to those who believed that the White man and the Negro could not intermingle. We should not allow the option for people to not pay their fair share for insurance because they find it "objectionable" to their beliefs. People paying for healthcare infringes upon no one's rights.

Click to expand...

We're not asking for an exemption to healthcare entirely. Why must I repeat this?

We're simply asking that our money not go to contraception. It will still receive funding, and it will still be readily available, but we will not be responsible for funding it.

I still fail to see why this is difficult to grasp.

But you will be responsible for supporting a program that enables abortions. While your money might not be funding the abortions, your money is what will help keep the overall program working smoothly.

Mr. X said:

But you will be responsible for supporting a program that enables abortions. While your money might not be funding the abortions, your money is what will help keep the overall program working smoothly.

Click to expand...

In that case, the blood is on their hands. Of course, seeing as there were several thousand in Washington freezing to death in the March for Life these past few days, it would be inconsistent to fund abortions while we send groups to D.C. to protest it.

Also, we're Catholics, not anarchists. We want to practice our religion, not bring the government to its knees.

1. No, I don't have the advantage because of your religion. I have the advantage because of facts. Abortions of unborn fetuses, especially those in the first trimester, is just a removal cluster of cells. ALL cells have potential for human life. All of them. Exfoliation? Killing cells with potential for human life.

2. As Toujours pointed out, your beliefs shouldn't entitle you to a special privilege of dictating companies as to where their funds can and cannot be invested. Government should ensure equal opportunity for its citizens, not pander to beliefs of entitlement.

1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

This is not a thread for abortion, however.


2. In that case, why was there a big flareup when Sharia Law got taken out?

I think you're right, though. The government should allow absolute openness for all viewpoints, and cater to none.

Therefore, let's cease federal aid, let's cut the scholarships, and let's remove race from the equation entirely. We should all be given blank slates and an even playing field, and our viewpoints be damned.



Anyway.

@Toujours: However, there are many non-Catholics working at Catholic institutions. Is it morally justifiable to fire everyone and throw them on the street because of "Lolsorry guys!"?

And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.

Of course, I believe that the government really does need to stamp out this "pregnancy" disease thing, and I honestly wish that our mothers would have agreed.

1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

This is not a thread for abortion, however.


2. In that case, why was there a big flareup when Sharia Law got taken out?

I think you're right, though. The government should allow absolute openness for all viewpoints, and cater to none.

Therefore, let's cease federal aid, let's cut the scholarships, and let's remove race from the equation entirely. We should all be given blank slates and an even playing field, and our viewpoints be damned.



Anyway.

@Toujours: However, there are many non-Catholics working at Catholic institutions. Is it morally justifiable to fire everyone and throw them on the street because of "Lolsorry guys!"?

And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.

Of course, I believe that the government really does need to stamp out this "pregnancy" disease thing, and I honestly wish that our mothers would have agreed.

Shanghai Alice said:

1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.

Click to expand...

1. Why is it that when it's human, it's a abortion, and if it's a chicken, its a omelet? If a fetus is a human being, why doesn't the Census count them? If a Fetus is a human being, why don't they have a funeral when their is a miscarriage? If a fetus is a human being, then why does a woman say I have one child and one on the way instead of just saying I have two children?

And yes, all taken from George Carlin's '96 show. But the questions that he asked still apply to today.

2. So, its OK for your sister to take pills that prevent the medical condition known as Pregnancy, but its wrong for anyone else to? Unless you are referring to other medical conditions, in which case your arguments against birth control pills being bad pretty much goes out the window. Even then, it matters not the condition because even IF its being used for something else, the fact is that it's still birth control which is meant to stop the creation of life.

If you want to be with the program, but not have your money go to contraception, would you still be okay paying the same amount as people who do want contraception?

So yeah. I find it hard to see how someone could want to be part of a program, like health insurance, that includes things they object to, like contraception. Even if your money doesn't go directly to paying for the pill or condoms it's still going to pay for something like cancer screening and that will free up money to go to contraception. The bottom line doesn't change.

Shanghai Alice said:

1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

This is not a thread for abortion, however.

Click to expand...

Nah, I said EVERYTHING has potential for human life. If you outlaw abortion on the grounds that it kills human life, then you'd have to outlaw a bunch of other basic everyday things as well because that too is killing human life. I can see how you would get the two mixed up though.

I think you're right, though. The government should allow absolute openness for all viewpoints, and cater to none.

Therefore, let's cease federal aid, let's cut the scholarships, and let's remove race from the equation entirely. We should all be given blank slates and an even playing field, and our viewpoints be damned.

Click to expand...

In an ideal situation, yes, nobody should judge based on race, but there is and likely will always be inherent racism in the system. "Blank Slates" are anything but. To give marginalized persons an even playing field, they are given aid in order to reach the same level as privileged persons. To say this aid is preferential treatment is similar an older sibling's jealousy toward their newborn sibling because they get new baby toys and all they have are their laptops and smartphones.

And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.

Click to expand...

"The only moral abortion is my abortion". Birth control is still birth control. Do you think your sister would appreciate it if you supported government making it harder for her to obtain her medication?

Of course, I believe that the government really does need to stamp out this "pregnancy" disease thing, and I honestly wish that our mothers would have agreed.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? First you go off saying that this isn't the thread for it and then you keep bringing it up? Second, a common misconception of the pro-choice movement is that people think we're going to force people to get abortions. That is not the pro-choice movement. The pro-choice movement advocates a woman's right to her body and her choice of whether or not to follow through with her pregnancy. It's not rocket science to give women complete control over their bodies?

TRIFORCE89 said:

Because it is on the way. It's like if you order something from Amazon. You've paid for it, it's yours, but it hasn't arrived yet. It exists but it hasn't arrived yet. And maybe it'll get lost along the way. Don't count all your chickens until they've hatched.... to bring your analogy full circle.

Click to expand...

And to complete your analogy, what if a mother didn't intentionally order the package and it was an accident? What if someone forced it on her? What if, somewhere along the line, her situation changed or she realized she would no longer be able to afford this package? Should she not be able to return or cancel her order? People always say "regifting" as if it's a guarantee that the package will receive an owner, but the process of delivery is already incredibly painful to go through and there's no guarantee that the package will find an owner since there's already a terribly large backlog of regifted orders.

Scarf said:

If you want to be with the program, but not have your money go to contraception, would you still be okay paying the same amount as people who do want contraception?

So yeah. I find it hard to see how someone could want to be part of a program, like health insurance, that includes things they object to, like contraception. Even if your money doesn't go directly to paying for the pill or condoms it's still going to pay for something like cancer screening and that will free up money to go to contraception. The bottom line doesn't change.

Click to expand...

This pretty much. It's all or nothing. Your money either goes to an organization that funds availability of contraception as well as provide you with healthcare, or you pay nothing at all and thus receive no healthcare. As Went pointed out, taxes don't pander to your beliefs since people can exploit these tax loopholes to try to obtain non-existent taxes. Additionally, with Obama's mandated health insurance policy to ensure that no American is denied coverage, you'll just have to accept that taxpayer money will be used to fund projects such as contraception and abortion.