Affordable Care Act and the Religious Exemption

[Shanghai Alice]

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

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.

 

[Charlie Kelly]

Emergency contraceptives are legal to anyone over 17 who wants them anyway, and only cost like $40. This article sounds completely biased, also. "[...] thus destroying a human life as it begins its development into a child." Really? Destroying a human life? Isn't that a bit melodramatic?

No one is forcing anyone to get morning after pills. I fail to see any issue here that isn't about pro-lifers being offended about something they probably don't understand and doesn't actually affect them.

But honestly, I didn't read the entire article so I may have missed something.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Emergency contraceptives are legal to anyone over 17 who wants them anyway, and only cost like $40. This article sounds completely biased, also. "[...] thus destroying a human life as it begins its development into a child." Really? Destroying a human life? Isn't that a bit melodramatic?

It was the only semi-coherent one I could find. The rest all concerned a Republican plot to bring down healthcare, and the Church hating human beings everywhere.

I say this sincerely, if you can find a more neutral article, please post it.

No one is forcing anyone to get morning after pills. I fail to see any issue here that isn't about pro-lifers being offended about something they probably don't understand and doesn't actually affect them.

It's not about getting medicine, it's about paying for it. Come August of 2013, all employers will be required to offer the option of contraceptives to their employees. As hard as it is to understand, some people find this hard to swallow.

The issue isn't the availability of contraception, that's an entirely different battle that's being fought elsewhere. The issue is, "Should people be forced to pay for, and offer, things that they are fundamentally opposed to?"

Contraceptives aren't a basic necessity, as pregnancy by itself is not a disease. If you think otherwise, I wonder if you wish you mother had agreed with you. Religious institutions, such as hospitals, schools, and charities, should not be forced to give funding to something which is a clear-cut no-no for them.

The alternative to disobeying the law would be to acquire exemption by laying off all non-believers on staff, leading to mass job loss.

Of course, I'm sure that all this fuss, all these people getting upset that their rights are being infringed on, is just a passing thing, and will die down eventually.

However, it seems slightly hypocritical for people to wave the bloody shirt whenever anyone "sticks it to the man" of religion, while at the same time ignoring Christians who voice similar complaints.

But what do I know, I'm a pro-lifer.

But honestly, I didn't read the entire article so I may have missed something.

Noted.

 

[Mr. X]

A person has to pay taxes, some of which go to your local school system even if that person doesn't have a child in the school system.

So, essentially, the forced taxation for services that you won't use has been around for a while. Nothing new, just a lot more people *****ing complaining about it.

But contraceptives are not the only thing your having to pay for, even if you never intend to use them. This bill is a attempt to ensure everyone for every condition, even though no single person will ever be effected by all covered conditions.

 

[Allstories]

I don't understand why contraceptives should be singled out as being something people don't want to pay for, when we already pay for contentious things like health care, the military, the post office, and myriad other governmental functions. Oh wait, yes I do: it's because you are personally morally opposed to something because you perceive it to be murder. By dancing around the issue and framing it like "should we have to PAY for this?" you're obfuscating your actual intentions. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suspect that you probably don't believe that emergency contraceptives are perfectly fine otherwise, if you didn't have to pay for them.

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?

Also, we're not supposed to just go with whatever the majority wants. We're supposed to protect the minority. There's a distinction between democracy and rule of the mob.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I'm not against contraceptives or universal health care. I just don't understand why some certain contraceptives would be covered. Assuming, I understood "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" correctly.

It's not the responsibility of the government or your employer to see that you get laid. If you want to have sex, go buy some condoms and do it responsibly. Why would such common over-the-counter stuff be covered?

If I totally misunderstood, please correct me. Abortions, I understand. Surgeries. But, over the counter things?

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Ooh, I love posts like this!

I don't understand why contraceptives should be singled out as being something people don't want to pay for, when we already pay for contentious things like health care, the military, the post office, and myriad other governmental functions.

All of which are perfectly acceptable to me, and cause no moral issues by providing for them.

Oh wait, yes I do: it's because you are personally morally opposed to something because you perceive it to be murder.

I said this is not an abortion thread, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. However, because you (so cleverly) deduced that I am opposed to abortion, en garde.

By dancing around the issue and framing it like "should we have to PAY for this?" you're obfuscating your actual intentions.

I am a Catholic, and I oppose abortion. There, your clever and biting wit hath wrung the truth out of deceitful me.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suspect that you probably don't believe that emergency contraceptives are perfectly fine otherwise, if you didn't have to pay for them.

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.

I love people that say things that are easily answerable by a little bit of reading.

Also, we're not supposed to just go with whatever the majority wants. We're supposed to protect the minority. There's a distinction between democracy and rule of the mob.

So tell me, how are my beliefs being protected by forcing me to pay for something that I regard as morally intolerable?


Anyway, on to the non-troll posts.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not complaining about having to pay more taxes for things I'll never use (for example, I attend a private school, and we still pay taxes for public. I'm cool with that. Reading helps, mate), it's about paying taxes for things that are fundamentally against my beliefs.


The thread was meant to ask, "Should people be forced to provide for something that runs counter to their beliefs?", but the concept seems like a difficult one to grasp, so I will simplify.



Now, all insurance policies are required to cover contraception (which is considered immoral and wrong by certain religious groups, mine included), and now everyone is more-or-less forced to have insurance.

So, boys and girls, the problem is thus:

Bob is a Christian. Bob is required by Mr. Government to get insurance. Bob's insurance is required by Mr. Government to provide for contraception.

Therefore, Bob is required to pay for other people to receive things that he is fundamentally opposed to.

"But the bill states that churches are exempt!"

However, Bob works at Christian Hospital, which is run by Christians. Christian Hospital, in the interest of not being "close-minded bigots" that everyone accuses them of being, has hired people of other faiths and backgrounds.

Therefore, they are no longer exempt, because what if Charlie wants to get his girlfriend the morning after pill? Therefore, everyone who opposes such things must pay for Charlie's pill through insurance, or face heavy government penalties.


If I need to explain to you why people would be mildly irked, then I'm sorry.


This isn't the thread to debate whether contraception is right or wrong, we already have one for that. This is a thread to discuss how important or unimportant people's morals and beliefs are, and how much the government can intervene.

...

...


Discuss.

 

[Charlie Kelly]

Wait wait wait, so this is the employer actually paying for medicine/healthcare on a per pill/per doctor visit basis rather than some sort of medical insurance/drug plan?

Notes: in my "pro-lifers being offended about something they probably don't understand and doesn't actually affect them" I wasn't implying their thoughts or beliefs are wrong, just that many people don't realize that "emergency contraception" doesn't mean "baby-killing pills." Most work by stopping fertilization in the first place. But for those against contraception I guess it doesn't matter as much. And if they're actually paying the $40 for a morning-after pill, rather than a flat amount of money somewhere, I retract the latter portion of my statement, because they are directly buying it so I can understand the problem there.

But if they are paying a flat rate, it shouldn't matter what pills they buy. Hence the "doesn't actually affect them." Hell, he shouldn't KNOW what pills they're buying, because that's an invasion of privacy.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

<Facepalm>

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO.

The problem isn't "knowing what they buy", the problem isn't "paying for something they'll never use", the problem isn't "paying for something that's OTC".

The problem is that we are fundamentally against contraception, and Catholic institutions will be forced to provide for something that they are vehemently against, or lay everyone off.

 

[Charlie Kelly]

Um, just because you're Catholic doesn't automatically give you the right to butt into other people's business. It might be a different story if they had to directly pay for it, but opposing insurance because someone could get birth control is ridiculous. It isn't hurting you, it isn't hurting them, it isn't affecting your life in any way, shape or form. Whether they use said insurance for birth control pills or blood pressure medicine. I don't get why people insist on judging others and getting angry about things that have absolutely no bearing on their own lives until they insert themselves into the situation.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

<Facepalm>

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO.

The problem isn't "knowing what they buy", the problem isn't "paying for something they'll never use", the problem isn't "paying for something that's OTC".

The problem is that we are fundamentally against contraception, and Catholic institutions will be forced to provide for something that they are vehemently against, or lay everyone off.

Well.. it would be indirectly funding it. Why disallow the insurance all together for all kinds of so-called legitimate purposes your employees may require because of one aspect of the coverage? And if your employees are of the same mind, then they wouldn't be using the insurance for contraception anyway. That it's now covered wouldn't be encouraging it for those of whom it was never an option in their mind anyway. So, there's no problem. Hypothetically anyway.

We had a somewhat similar problem here. It was decided that all publicly-funded schools must offer an after-school social club for gay students if a student requests it. A school cannot reject having such a club. Personally, I don't really care. However, the argument brought up was that Catholic schools (which here are publicly funded) would have to allow such clubs. Interestingly, the Catholic school board itself didn't make a fuss - but third party interest groups did.

In the end, you bite the bullet. Disallowing it for everyone only hurts those who weren't going to use it anyway.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Well.. it would be indirectly funding it. Why disallow the insurance all together for all kinds of so-called legitimate purposes your employees may require because of one aspect of the coverage?

Because Catholic organizations use insurance plans that don't cover the objectionable options, while acting as a regular insurance program otherwise.

This would force even the "agreeable options" to offer contraception, which is a bad thing. In all sincerity, I fail to see why we're going through this circle.

We have our own And if your employees are of the same mind, then they wouldn't be using the insurance for contraception anyway.

But the simple fact that they are funding it is the issue here, not over whether or not anyone uses it. People are upset because they have to fund something they disagree with.

For example, let's say the government mandated that all citizens must pay taxes that go to supporting, say, sending homosexual kids to gulags. Would you be okay with this because "you wouldn't use it, so why care"?

That it's now covered wouldn't be encouraging it for those of whom it was never an option in their mind anyway. So, there's no problem. Hypothetically anyway.

To use the example above, the existence of the gulags does not influence you, so you'd have no problem with paying for the "re-education" of homosexuals, correct?

Hypothetically, anyway.

We had a somewhat similar problem here. It was decided that all publicly-funded schools must offer an after-school social club for gay students if a student requests it. A school cannot reject having such a club. Personally, I don't really care. However, the argument brought up was that Catholic schools (which here are publicly funded) would have to allow such clubs. Interestingly, the Catholic school board itself didn't make a fuss - but third party interest groups did.

A few things there, mate.

1. They're publicly funded, so they do whatever they're told, as they're getting the money conditionally. My school, as well as the local hospitals, aren't. They're self-sustained to avoid having the government intervene on their beliefs, which is why this order is so offensive.

2. Catholics have no problems with loving homosexual children. It's typically the fringe groups that are screaming for blood and hellfire. I'm glad someone understands this.

In the end, you bite the bullet. Disallowing it for everyone only hurts those who weren't going to use it anyway.

So, you tolerate injustice because it'd be selfish to protest against them?



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.

 

[Oryx]

Um, just because you're Catholic doesn't automatically give you the right to butt into other people's business. It might be a different story if they had to directly pay for it, but opposing insurance because someone could get birth control is ridiculous. It isn't hurting you, it isn't hurting them, it isn't affecting your life in any way, shape or form. Whether they use said insurance for birth control pills or blood pressure medicine. I don't get why people insist on judging others and getting angry about things that have absolutely no bearing on their own lives until they insert themselves into the situation.

To be fair, to a Catholic abortion is murder. Imagine if you saw someone murdering another person and were told not to judge the murderer or get angry at them because the murder has no bearing on your own life. You may not believe it's murder yourself, but it's not unreasonable when you think of it from a Catholic's point of view why birth control/abortions should not just be avoided by them, but by everybody.

Not implying that the law is unconstitutional or not, because I'm honestly not certain in this case. And this is coming from someone who has gotten birth control off of government health insurance in the past.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

The point isn't whether or not it's murder, the point is, how would you feel if someone forced you to fund said murder?

 

[Oryx]

Those two are very interrelated. I was defending your side, no need to try to correct me. Yeesh.

I would really appreciate it if you would cool your jets a little, it makes it difficult to have an actual discussion with you jumping down everyone's throats.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

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.

I'm Catholic too, you know.

If your organization is no longer recognized as being a Catholic organization because you have non-Catholic employees, well... thems the rules. You can't be exempt. Regain your Catholic status and then you're exempt. There's no inbetween for if your organization is "almost Catholic".

Now, this line of the article you posted...

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?

Is a good example. For the most part, I would agree. However, there are some situations that arise where that (sterilization, not Botox) is necessary surgery. But, in most cases no. Even so, for the circumstances it is covered. Abortion does have some necessary, although unfortunate, uses at times such as ensuring the life of the mother in a high risk pregnancy where the baby is already known to not survive. So, for these exceptions, you see funding. I'm not sure why you can't just cover specific situations ("life-saving" abortions vs "meh, I just don't feel like having a baby" abortions), but that never seems to be the case. All or none.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Those two are very interrelated. I was defending your side, no need to try to correct me. Yeesh.

I would really appreciate it if you would cool your jets a little, it makes it difficult to have an actual discussion with you jumping down everyone's throats.

Ahh, sorry for coming off that way. ^^; I was actually agreeing with you, seeing as how you had the nerve to state what I'd been trying to find the words for.

Also, trying to make seven small children shut up and learn CPR tends to make me extremely cranky. -_-

Apologies! I didn't mean any offense.



@TRIFORCE: So... lay off non-Catholic employees? That creates a whole 'nother problem.

 

[Charlie Kelly]

So wait, do Catholics equate birth control to murder? Serious question here, not incredibly well-versed on the Catholic faith.

Though, to keep this away from being solely about Catholics, this poses a problem to other religions as well... Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Having to pay for blood transfusions and the like.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

So wait, do Catholics equate birth control to murder? Serious question here, not incredibly well-versed on the Catholic faith.

We equate abortion to the termination of a human life, which is murder.

Birth control would require a lot of explanation (most of it dependent on certain views of humanity and reproduction), but the short answer is "It's bad, don't do it."

Though, to keep this away from being solely about Catholics, this poses a problem to other religions as well... Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Having to pay for blood transfusions and the like.

Which would, of course, be infringing on their rights.

 

[Charlie Kelly]

We equate abortion to the termination of a human life, which is murder.

Birth control would require a lot of explanation (most of it dependent on certain views of humanity and reproduction), but the short answer is "It's bad, don't do it."

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."

Which would, of course, be infringing on their rights.

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.