By the way, the people who are complaining the loudest are the arch-diocese,
who have the “defend our religious freedom” yard signs and billboards.
I’m just wondering about all the other things they have to pay for during the course of doing business, and given how restrictive Catholics are there just has to be things other than birth control that don’t follow their interpretation of the Bible. Yet they aren’t buying billboards to complain about those.
It just seems like the only things the various religions publicly oppose have to do with any curbing of rapid overpopulation.
It’ll cross your mind one of these days.
I think that there are exceptions made for birth control for medical reasons. The BC is to treat a true medical problem and incidentally affects fertility.
It’s not a condition of your employment. Nor, in fact, is it a limitation of your health care. The Catholic Church here isn’t firing its employees for failing to live up to their religious scruples, or even for using birth control. They’re just not offering a health care plan that pays for it: therefore, not subsidizing it.
That’s because being forced to subsidize birth control by the government, their religious freedom is being attacked.
And if you work for a Jehovah’s Witness, he doesn’t have to pay for insurance that covers blood transfusions.
And I don’t have to pay for nuclear weapons.
And you’re a doofus.
What exactly are these employees doing for them that is mandated by their religious beliefs? If they had no employees at all, which of their religious practices are affected?
Seems to me the simple solution is to ditch all paid employees and get church members to do the work for free or a pittance, i.e. get a devout acolyte who will do anything for the church out of blind devotion and treat him like a slave, as religious organizations have done for centuries.
For the first: sure. And if I have a serious problem with that, I won’t work for a Jehovah’s Witness who makes their medical provider decisions based ontheir relgiious beliefs.
I don’t know where nuclear weapons come into the topic of the situation. But I’m relatively certain that they have nothing to do with private employers being required to do anything.
As far as being a doofus, I suppose I do disagree with you on an issue, which I suppose is a reasonable definition of the word.
I’m not following your argument here. The actions of an organization, even a religious one, aren’t limited solely to their religious practice.
Well, if they’re engaged in activities that are outside their religious practices, how can goverment regulation of said practices be an attack on their religious freedom?
Is there scriptural support for regulating medical insurance or the medical practices of one’s “manservants” or “maidservants” (i.e. employees)?
Part of the social contract is being required to pay for something we don’t want to pay for. There are plenty of tax paying pacifists/members of the CND, for instance. The disjunction comes from the fact that healthcare is tied to an employer, if it were federal, the anger would be a lot more diffuse.
the really funny thing is that the Bible doesn’t even mention contraception, and the closest it comes to talking about abortion is a forced miscarriage, which is treated like a property crime (pay the lady 7 shekels.) As a matter of fact, in the OT children aren’t even considered to be people until they are more than a month old. I don’t have a problem with people being against abortion or contraception, I don’t have a problem with said individuals being vocal about their opposition. I have a huge fucking problem with people who dress their opposition up in holy vestments.
Right. Like I said before, at least I can pretend my federal taxes go to something I support, and someone else’s (someone who “supports the troops”) go to the military. If I am an employer paying someone’s claims, it’s a much more direct link and I bear some responsibility for facilitating what is being done.
Fantastic 
By that reckoning they should pay for birth control where the birth control is for other medical purposes right? I could use the same rationale to exclude coverage for all the most expensive elements of health insurance.
My moral code really focuses on personal responsibility. Therefore I don’t want to pay for health insurance that covers cancer (for anyone who has ever smoked), diabetes (for anyone that is overweight), pregnancy, kids, heart disease (for anyone that is overweight or smokes), etc.
I also believe vaccination causes mental retardation so I won’t cover that either.
See how stupid it becomes when we compare what the medical profession considers health care against what I (or priests) consider exercise of first amendment rights.
Yes, I think there should be/is an exception for BC for medical reasons. And yes, it is stupid – so if you mandate health care, take it out of the hands of the employer.
This makes one wonder,birth control is called a sin, but having children you can’t feed, care for, or abuse isn’t?One need look to countries like Haiti or some places in the Sudan and ask that same question.
I would never have children I couldn’t abuse…
(Sorry! Grammar fascist at play!)
Anyway, fwiw, total agreement. These idiots all seem to think that children’s interests and need for government protection all cease at the instant of birth.