Affordable Care Act and the Religious Exemption

[Shanghai Alice]

It isn't denying them healthcare, it's just refusing to pay for it. The government isn't poor, it has other ways of acquiring the money.

However, I was taught that it's better to keep yourself morally clean and let the offense be entirely the other person's.

The same principle applies here. Why should I be forced to stain my hands?

 

[Oryx]

Well, yeah, but there's a big difference between funding a murder and funding something that's bad. I don't think abortion is covered by insurance. And again, emergency contraception is not abortion, even if you believe life begins at conception, because it stops the conception from happening in the first place. So either way, the sole offender would be contraception. I guess my question would be is it morally right to deny someone healthcare based on your belief? Because that's what it essentially coming down to. I find it very petty for someone to say "I don't want you to have healthcare because I don't like birth control and you could potentially use it for that."


I feel like they shouldn't be pushing their beliefs onto others, especially when that belief contradicts a practice that saves literally thousands of lives every day.

Emergency contraception works in multiple ways. One of the ways is to not allow a fertilized egg to embed itself in the uterus so it's expelled instead of growing into a fetus/child/what-have-you. Since that practice involved directly not allowing a fertilized egg to live, and the Catholic belief is that life begins once the egg is fertilized, emergency contraception is equivalent to an abortion.

I wouldn't be against an alternate option for employers that identify as Catholic, or a Catholic institution, that didn't include contraceptives and others. So far I haven't really seen an argument that's been very compelling the other way.

And my apologies for misunderstanding you as well Alice, lol. :3

 

[Charlie Kelly]

The government is sorta poor. The country is like 15 trillion dollars in debt.

That didn't exactly answer my question. In fact, it kinda dodged it. I thought the problem was not with companies being forced to pay for healthcare, but with paying for healthcare that didn't conform to your beliefs. What if someone needs a very important surgery? And they can't pay for it because you decided that the healthcare system was wrong because of birth control pills? How is that right?

 

[Shanghai Alice]

The government is sorta poor. The country is like 15 trillion dollars in debt.

And yet they still come up with funds for whatever they need. :/ But that's another topic.

That didn't exactly answer my question. In fact, it kinda dodged it.

Apologies. I'm tired, and I am, admittedly, starting to skim.

I thought the problem was not with companies being forced to pay for healthcare, but with paying for healthcare that didn't conform to your beliefs.

Si.

What if someone needs a very important surgery? And they can't pay for it because you decided that the healthcare system was wrong because of birth control pills? How is that right?

Well, then the hospital would probably just eat the cost and give them the surgery.

See that's the thing. The Church is faced with the dilemma of "Lay everyone off and reduce our effectiveness in healthcare, or compromise our beliefs and pretty much make it pointless to believe in anything anymore".

Still. I think your argument is invalid because insurance=/=ability to have the surgery. Yes, it helps a lot to be able to pay, but do you honestly think a man that was willing to protest something like this for his beliefs would deny someone surgery if they needed it to save their lives?


And before you nail me with "What if the pregnancy is life-threatening?", there's a whole slew of moral teachings on that, and that's a thread in and of itself. There are times when it is and isn't okay to kill either the baby or the mother to save the other.

But it's never okay to kill because "I don't want it/can't support it". There are charities and shelters (run by the Church, no less!) for such things.


Err, is that clear? I think I answered your question. :/

 

[Charlie Kelly]

I'm not trying to get pro-choice on you, I'm not sure what exactly inspired that tone but I understand that being a natural reaction.

I needed a serious surgery and didn't have insurance, they pretty much told me too bad. If you pay cash we'll reduce the cost by about 75%... which was still about $14k. They wouldn't do it because it wasn't an emergency, though if I didn't get it I could essentially just drop dead. Hospitals aren't as giving as you think :\

Anyway, I had follow ups but I lost my train of thought here, so... nevermind.

Emergency contraception works in multiple ways. One of the ways is to not allow a fertilized egg to embed itself in the uterus so it's expelled instead of growing into a fetus/child/what-have-you. Since that practice involved directly not allowing a fertilized egg to live, and the Catholic belief is that life begins once the egg is fertilized, emergency contraception is equivalent to an abortion.

You posted while I was typing out my post :P Anyway, emergency contraceptives are strongly believed to not actually work like that, but rather disrupt ovulation or fertilization, not interfere with a fertilized egg.

The evidence strongly supports disruption of ovulation as a mechanism of action. The data suggest that emergency contraceptives are unlikely to act by interfering with implantation, although the possibility has not been completely excluded. The data also suggest that emergency contraceptives are ineffective after ovulation.

Read More: https://pharmacotherapyjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1592/phco.30.2.158?cookieSet=1

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Eh, I'm an idealist, which is a product of my somewhat optimistic youth.

I'll probably get over it in a few years. I'm already starting to realize how much I openly despise the American political system.


Anyway. Bed.

 

[Oryx]

You posted while I was typing out my post :P Anyway, emergency contraceptives are strongly believed to not actually work like that, but rather disrupt ovulation or fertilization, not interfere with a fertilized egg.

But the drugs themselves are listed as prohibiting implantation.

Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel are used together in this product as an emergency contraceptive (EC) to prevent pregnancy after contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse. Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel prevent ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary), disrupt fertilization (joining of the egg and sperm), and inhibit implantation (attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus).

https://www.drugs.com/mtm/preven-ec.html

Levonorgestrel is a female hormone that prevents ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary). Plan B also causes changes in your cervical mucus and uterine lining, making it harder for sperm to reach the uterus and harder for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus.

https://www.drugs.com/plan-b.html

ella (ulipristal) is an emergency contraceptive. It works by stopping or delaying the release of an egg from an ovary. Ulipristal may also make it harder for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus.

https://www.drugs.com/ella.html

It's by no means the primary method of how it works, and your study supports that as well, but considering that all the drugs have that listed as something it does do, I have a feeling it wouldn't get past the FDA without making sure it does what it says it does. To a Catholic it's the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette, even putting aside the fact that contraception is banned in Catholicism as it is, lol.

 

[Mr. X]

Just saying, but religion has been preventing progress for a very long time.

Anyway, I see a church interfering with a government as the same as a massive corporation. Each way, they want their own way no matter how many people are screwed over because of it. Arguably, religion doesn't screw people over as bad as corporation does though.

But still, religious objection?

Are you forcing them to use the contraceptive? No.
Are you forcing them to get abortions? No.
Are you the one selling the contraceptive? No.
Are you the one doing the abortion? No.

Your not forcing them to do something, or doing it yourself. So where exactly does Religion have a issue with this?

Final point, don't like how this country is run? Options are : 1) Get over it. 2) Move. 3) Become a politician and change how the country is run.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

And yet they still come up with funds for whatever they need. :/ But that's another topic.



Apologies. I'm tired, and I am, admittedly, starting to skim.


Si.


Well, then the hospital would probably just eat the cost and give them the surgery.

See that's the thing. The Church is faced with the dilemma of "Lay everyone off and reduce our effectiveness in healthcare, or compromise our beliefs and pretty much make it pointless to believe in anything anymore".

Still. I think your argument is invalid because insurance=/=ability to have the surgery. Yes, it helps a lot to be able to pay, but do you honestly think a man that was willing to protest something like this for his beliefs would deny someone surgery if they needed it to save their lives?


And before you nail me with "What if the pregnancy is life-threatening?", there's a whole slew of moral teachings on that, and that's a thread in and of itself. There are times when it is and isn't okay to kill either the baby or the mother to save the other.

But it's never okay to kill because "I don't want it/can't support it". There are charities and shelters (run by the Church, no less!) for such things.


Err, is that clear? I think I answered your question. :/

Yes, most likely the hospital would take them in. They don't reject you. However, they only won't be on the hook if they're homeless. But, I would hope that you're paying your employees enough such that they have a house, and if they have a house, then they do have to pay. And if they can't afford it because you denied them health insurance because it funded something you don't agree with but that they may not have used, then they face the very real possibility of losing their house in order to cover the cost.

How is that good? Or moral for that matter? Put someone out on the street because you wouldn't give them insurance and they had the audacity to get sick.

 

[Esper]

I just want to point out a couple of things about contraception.

1) Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that people can just buy contraception, but emergency contraception is not always available even for people paying out of pocket at the drug store. There are scattered cases of pharmacists refusing to sell the pill to people "for religious reasons" and especially if the one looking to buy it is a man.

2) Birth control is often given to women for non-contraception reasons because it can help regulate menstruation and so on. I know someone personally who uses birth control because she gets debilitating periods and some days she wouldn't be able to leave the house because they're so bad. It's simply the best option for her for a number of reasons, not the least being the cost, to use birth control. Point of the story: it would be wrong to deny her this medicine because she happens to work at a Catholic (or whatever) job that is morally opposed to contraception.


Anyway, on the other topic of "paying for something you're morally opposed to" I could say that we all have things we're morally opposed to that the government does and yet we still pay taxes because most of what the government does is okay for us. I don't really like that answer though.

I agree that at some point a government could be doing something that a person finds so objectionable they can't stand it anymore and should not be made to support it, but I'm not sure where that point is and wouldn't want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand. If I were to draw a line in the sand I'd want it to be a line that everyone could see, that is, one not based in subjective beliefs but in objective facts. To use contraception as an example: calling an egg a person is an unsupported belief and the failure of an egg to implant on the uterine wall can't therefore be called murder. (Compare this to, say a newborn baby which can be objectively called a person and the killing of it murder.)

When you start talking in terms of something being morally unacceptable you have to ask how much is it morally unacceptable? Does everything a person finds morally unacceptable have the same weight? If, for instance, I find it morally unacceptable to deny gay couples the right to marry and another person finds it morally unacceptable to allow gay couples the right to marry, how do we solve this dilemma? If the government steps in to support one side or the other someone will feel their morals are being trampled over, that they shouldn't have to support a government that tramples over their morals, and so on.

 

[jpp8]

I'm sorry, I really don't understand. I read this thread, and then I read the thread about the Girl Scouts, where everyone's in a tizzy because rights are being violated, and I just can't reconcile them. It seems that it's only okay to violate some people's rights, so long as they have the same views as the special interest group of the month.

People like me? Sorry, but we're high and dry, because butthurt Catholics doesn't make for good news.

That's what I have a problem with. The lovely double standards. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

ITT: My Catholic faith is being persecuted in America.

Is the government or anyone else actively preventing you from practicing your beliefs? Are you actively singled out and harassed because of your beliefs? (And I'm not talking about "hurrdurr he disagrees with my view and called me stupid, I mean ACTUAL harassment.) As a whole, have people of your religion been targeted and physically harmed because of their religion in this county? No? Then what double standard? Your religion oppresses marginalized persons in the name of their beliefs and because the government wants to help those said people reach a better standard of living and acceptance, your "religious" rights are being violated?


On the topic of contraception and birth control, accidents happen. Condoms are not perfect and some will break on occasion. There are even those with skin allergies to the latex and what other material condoms are made of. The contraception and enhancement of males is readily available to all, but women's birth control and emergency contraception is becoming increasingly difficult for them to obtain. Allowing contraception and the like to be covered under healthcare and insurance would oppress no one. Your religion will be completely unaffected.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

ITT: My Catholic faith is being persecuted in America.

Is the government or anyone else actively preventing you from practicing your beliefs? Are you actively singled out and harassed because of your beliefs? (And I'm not talking about "hurrdurr he disagrees with my view and called me stupid, I mean ACTUAL harassment.) As a whole, have people of your religion been targeted and physically harmed because of their religion in this county? No? Then what double standard? Your religion oppresses marginalized persons in the name of their beliefs and because the government wants to help those said people reach a better standard of living and acceptance, your "religious" rights are being violated?

Absolutely wonderful for the government for putting down my horrific Hell Church, then.

But please, don't make me pay for it. They can do whatever they want, but I see no reason why I should be forced to pay for something I actively disagree with.


However, it's been made clear, and abundantly so, that I honestly need to sit down and shut up because I have, and I mean personally so, oppressed millions of people and probably run their dogs over as well.

I understand. I have no room to protest, and I have no room to argue my beliefs. If I do, I'm probably arguing in support of widespread death and hatred everywhere.

Of course, I don't know how I could've been so blinded. I merely assumed that, because several other threads here concern people being offended that their beliefs were being attacked, that I had the right to voice my opinion.

I see that I am in error, and I will stop trying to stand up for what I believe in. After all, I'm merely getting in the way of everyone else doing the same.

EDIT: Actually, no. Not [/Thread]. I have had one too many Hannibal Lecture this week. One on why I'm a worthless human being, one on how I'm little more than a nuisance to everyone around me, and one on why I need to be quiet about what I believe in. And it's time to make a fool of myself once again, to show everyone why I'm little more than a raving idiot who's a waste of space, just one more time. Because even though I've been told for years that I'm worthless, that I'm stupid, that I'm whatever the hell you want to say, I'm still a human, and I still have a voice. I may stutter, I may stammer, I may be completely and totally unintelligible all of the time, but I still have a voice, even if I can only express it in text.

I know that what I believe in is unpopular. I know that there are many, many horrible things in my religion's history, and that, currently, my politics are unpopular because of who's in office right now.

However, I find it totally ironic that, in the same breath people use to tell me that I oppress the downtrodden and minorities, they also tell me to silence myself, to hide what I believe in, to not take a stand. I find it funny that people who can so blindly spew hatred and bile can also accuse me of bigotry and ignorance.

It's ironic, it's so horribly ironic, that the same people who denounce those that hate and blame are the ones who blame me for everything done in the past two thousand years that was even tangentially related to my beliefs.

Friends, let me make one thing clear. I am not a Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone preacher, I am not a skinhead with a shotgun who beats up the neighbor kids, and I am not a cross burning zealot.

I'm just a guy, just one man, who's trying to make his way through life the best he can. Personally, I think that the doctrine of "be good to others" isn't a bad one, and I think that actually taking a stand, actually having a spine, is something to be valued. I deeply apologize for not bringing an army to back me up, for not waiting to state my views until they were wildly popular with guaranteed support. I apologize for bringing controversy, for bringing in a topic that isn't the usual "CONSERVATIVES RAPE AND MURDER TWENTY SEVEN BABIES". I dearly, dearly apologize for that.

Now, with that out of the way, I hope we can resume the topic, keeping in mind that I have never tortured a Moor, nor have I even been to Spain. Neither have I colonized the New World, or wiped out Indians.


...


What is the topic, you ask?

Why, it's simple!

The topic is, "Is it acceptable for the government to require someone to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with?"

Pay for.

Those two words right there would have saved half this topic.

Not use, not see, not look at...

Pay for.


If I need to elaborate further, let me know.


(See? That's jumping down people's throats.)

 

[jpp8]

You do have the right to voice your opinion. And I have the right to tell you that your train of thought is backwards and completely unaccepting of change or progress. That the ideas you "stand for" are outdated and only serve to oppress. You have the right to practice your religion. And I will DIE to protect your right as a human being to practice your religion freely and openly without fear of persecution. I WILL NOT however respect your religion and its ideas which have and continue to oppress a sizable amount of the world's population in the name of "morality".

The premise of taxes in the first place are so that governments can give back to their people. Within the last century, this has come in the form of social security, government funded projects to create jobs, and more. This also means that our tax dollars are used to fund other unwanted projects such as wars, paying foreign debt, and government funded bail-outs. Though these may be against our beliefs and desires, it is what the government feels is the best interest for the people (well, more like corporations in today's government, but in an ideal situation like with this healthcare bill) and no one is exempt from paying taxes for it (well, except for the wealthiest in this country, but again, another thread). The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees your right to freedom of expression which includes practice of religion. It DOES NOT however grant anyone special permissions and exemptions because of their beliefs. EVERYONE SHOULD PAY TAXES regardless of their religious affiliation.

 

[Oryx]

It's a fine line tbh. There are religions specifically created to be pacifist, or that hold pacifism as a main tenant of their religious beliefs. Do you feel that they should have the right to choose that their taxes not go to war? It's a highly similar situation in that they would feel war is needless suffering and killing in a similar way to abortion for Catholics.

 

[CapricornPsyche]

You do have the right to voice your opinion. And I have the right to tell you that your train of thought is backwards and completely unaccepting of change or progress. That the ideas you "stand for" are outdated and only serve to oppress. You have the right to practice your religion. And I will DIE to protect your right as a human being to practice your religion freely and openly without fear of persecution. I WILL NOT however respect your religion and its ideas which have and continue to oppress a sizable amount of the world's population in the name of "morality".

The premise of taxes in the first place are so that governments can give back to their people. Within the last century, this has come in the form of social security, government funded projects to create jobs, and more. This also means that our tax dollars are used to fund other unwanted projects such as wars, paying foreign debt, and government funded bail-outs. Though these may be against our beliefs and desires, it is what the government feels is the best interest for the people (well, more like corporations in today's government, but in an ideal situation like with this healthcare bill) and no one is exempt from paying taxes for it (well, except for the wealthiest in this country, but again, another thread). The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees your right to freedom of expression which includes practice of religion. It DOES NOT however grant anyone special permissions and exemptions because of their beliefs. EVERYONE SHOULD PAY TAXES regardless of their religious affiliation.

Since when did this topic become a "Conservative Nazi Vs. Liberal Communist" contest...? (not meaning to say all Conservatives and Liberals are like that, that's just how I typically call the regular riff-raff arguments between the two)

Getting back to topic, Since this topic is about forcing people to pay for something they don't believe in, they should change the exempt part of said law, such as if the individual strictly disapproves of their insurance or tax money having to pay for contraceptives and Abortions, then they should have the option to tell the insurance company to not have that an an option for them to pay for or tell the local government(or federal, however it may work) to exempt them from paying said tax.

Basically Speaking, don't make it an absolute requirement for everyone, but make it optional to make someone be exempt from it upon request.

This should be able to cater to Conservatives since they can request to opt out of paying for it, and liberals if they're ok with paying for this, thus not needing to make the request to opt out of said tax.

 

[Mr. X]

Ad on to that, but if they opt out of paying then that means that they should not be allowed the benefits of the service either.

You don't want to pay for the full service because you disagree with a small part of it? Fine. But that means you don't get any of the service.

 

[Empoleon144]

Personally, I believe that the Military as it is is much, much worse than adding Abortion to Health Care. The Military should be used in offence sparingly, and should be used to protect the resources we have.

Abortion is perfectly sane option. I believe this, mostly because the more people that are born, the more horrible life will be on this planet, a planet low on resources, a planet where over 5 Billion people live in poverty, and with every new person alive, we have a new hungry mouth there is to feed.

I may be incredibly cynical to some, but I'm just trying to be realistic.

According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they "die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death."

SOURCE

Note that the statistic cited uses children as those under the age of five. If it was say 6, or 7, the numbers would be even higher.)

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Ad on to that, but if they opt out of paying then that means that they should not be allowed the benefits of the service either.

You don't want to pay for the full service because you disagree with a small part of it? Fine. But that means you don't get any of the service.

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

 

[TRIFORCE89]

What is the topic, you ask?

Why, it's simple!

The topic is, "Is it acceptable for the government to require someone to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with?"

Pay for.

Those two words right there would have saved half this topic.

Not use, not see, not look at...

Pay for.


If I need to elaborate further, let me know.

If it wasn't something so controversial as abortion, what would be your opinion?

If someone who doesn't make use of cars or the roads but rely solely on the subway and in addition to that is actually anti-car. Deep down they see the car and the road as a destructive force full of pollution, something no one should use. Should their tax dollars go toward upkeep of those very roads?

A little bit like comparing apples and oranges, but it a topic that's popped up in my local area once or twice and I think its a relevant comparison.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

If it wasn't something so controversial as abortion, what would be your opinion?

If someone who doesn't make use of cars or the roads but rely solely on the subway and in addition to that is actually anti-car. Deep down they see the car and the road as a destructive force full of pollution, something no one should use. Should their tax dollars go toward upkeep of those very roads?

A little bit like comparing apples and oranges, but it a topic that's popped up in my local area once or twice and I think its a relevant comparison.

In that case, if they feel like they're paying for something that they think is actively detrimental to humanity, then they have the right to protest.



inb4 more "but... they aren't using the cars, so why do they CARE?"