So why can’t JWs say they won’t pay for blood transfusions? Patients are welcome to get them, so long as they pay for them. No harm, and the JWs aren’t forced to pay for something they are morally opposed to.
It is the same thing.
But what if they can’t afford it, as per the example given in Sandra Fluke’s testimony?
If I read the thread correctly, the Church doesn’t have to pay for it unless they’re employing non-Catholics for earthly matters (academic institutions, hospitals). Then, they still have the option of either employing fewer than 50 people or just not providing insurance.
The medication would not be considered contraception when used for ovarian cysts. There are many medications which may or may not be covered depending on how they are used. For example, steroids will typically be covered when prescribed to treat low testosterone levels but not when prescribed to a bodybuilder to bulk up.
If estrogen pills are prescribed for ovarian cysts, the doctor will not code them as contraception to the insurance company. But if the patient comes in to get birth control pills, they will be coded as contraception. So even if the church objects to BC coverage, they can still be prescribed as long as it’s not for contraception reasons.
There are many procedures which could be considered contraception (hysterectomy, testicular cancer treatment, etc). The church could not say they object to any procedure which prevented the person from having children.
Sorry, it seems like a significant distinction to me. You must disagree. There’s one thing to pay for contraception that has as it’s purpose to abort a baby and as a corollary purpose remedying the potential of ovarian problem. It’s another that a blood transfusion is a direct and singular response to an illness.
Oh come on. A condom is a dollar. And they can be had for free most anywhere. So Sandra Flukes example is ridiculous.
But if it is OK to make patients pay for contraception for medically necessary conditions, why isn’t it OK to make patients pay for transfusions? They are both medically necessary, without which the life of the patient life is in danger.
Honestly, you have not made a persuasive case for any difference between the two.
No contraception works like this. The Catholic Church even acceded that the morning after pill was contraception and not an abortion (while still a mortal sin, it’s just a less mortal sin).
Her friend’s insurer didn’t cover the pill, so her friend lost an ovary. I’m glad that you think it’s ridiculous and that a condom could somehow prevent that though.
He’s at it again. A caller on Rush’s show asked if Romneycare would be “null and void” if the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional (yes, really; that’s the level of constitutional scholarship you should expect from his callers). Rush said no–adding the usual “laboratories of democracy” clap-trap to the terxtbook answer–then said this:
[QUOTE=Rush Limbaugh]
“There might be some fallout on free birth control pills. In fact, there will be. If Obamacare is held unconstitutional and college co-eds could face personal expenses, what do we hear, $3,000, a thousand dollars a year to have protected sex. So free birth control pills would go by the wayside, and who knows, a number of other things.”
[/quote]
He’s clearly learned nothing from his most recent experience. Not that I’m surprised…