# Is the Contraception mandate a violation of religious freedom? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570 "2012-02-02T20:12:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/41 "2012-02-03T01:26:49Z")
> [@TripleFail](#): > > Remind me again why is contraceptive considered “sinful” again? Remind me again where the constitution says that religions have to have a reason for what they consider sinful? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/42 "2012-02-03T01:28:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Here’s the thing. Most American families can afford birth control. We’re talking less than $100/month. If we, as a society, feel that poor women should get subsidized birth control, then we as a society should pay for it. Forcing a religious organization into a one size fits all solution to a problem affecting a minority of Americans is a mockery of the 1st Amendment. I agree, I’d like to fund birth control in our public health system somehow but saying that the right to health care supersedes the First Amendment is not a good argument. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/43 "2012-02-03T01:33:56Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I agree, I’d like to fund birth control in our public health system somehow but saying that the right to health care supersedes the First Amendment is not a good argument. Of course it is. That’s why, for example lying about a treatment is medical fraud; you can’t, say, hand out sugar pills to people while saying they are antibiotics and claim the protection of the First Amendment. Religious organizations should be treated like any other group; if another group would have to dispense contraceptives or antibiotics or funny little hats in the same situation, then the religious group should have to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/44 "2012-02-03T01:36:41Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I was just going to post about the religious exemption but see that the topic has already come up. In [this](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/boehner-feds-should-back-off-order-for-many-religious-employers-to-cover-contraception/2012/02/02/gIQAXVvbkQ_story.html) article from the Washington Post and [this](http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/02/02/the-truth-about-contraception-obamacare-and-the-church/) one from Forbes, both from today, it seems as though the exemption is still in place. How is this being taken away? You’re right. I should have said “significantly narrowing the scope of the exemption” rather than “taking it away”. At least Obama has conveniently made arrangements for this new requirement to not take effect until after the election. As one Catholic Bishop put it, and I paraphrase: \*The administration has given us a year to figure out how we will violate our consciences. \* ---
**Author:** ![TripleFail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@TripleFail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TripleFail)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/45 "2012-02-03T01:40:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Remind me again where the constitution says that religions have to have a reason for what they consider sinful? ummm you clearly havnt read what I said but here it is again: " I ask this because without solid [Biblical] reasoning they can just say anything is sinful and refuse to comply with society on any issue." I really don’t know how to put this clearer, saying religious organization don’t have to justify any view point not even from Biblical source kind of speaks volumes. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/46 "2012-02-03T01:41:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The difference is that once the employee receives the money, it no longer belongs to the Church. yes, and since the insurance is essentially part of the pay the same reasoning applies. You pay the insurance company for a package and the employee chooces birth control or not. The church doesn’t directly pay for specific thing. > [@](#): > > You’re essentially saying that the Church should be OK buying anything for its employees that the Employees would buy for themselves. Do you think the Church should have no problem buying gift certificates to the Mustang Ranch for employees who like to spend their paychecks there? I’m not saying anything like that. I’m saying they are supplying a health care package where birth control is one option or service among thousands of possibilities. They are not directly paying for any specific service. Since they’ve already reconciled thier religious principles with the paycheck portion of thier employees compensation, they can use the same reasoning to reconcile the benefits protion. The employee is choosing, not them. It’s simply part of wages. Therefore, there is no violation of their religious principles , and their decision to negotiate contraceptives out is frivilous. Therefore, the complaint that not letting them do that is violating their religious freedom , is false. > [@](#): > > Not anymore. It’s mandated by the government. The Church can opt out by paying a recurring fine, but that money, too, is going to the same place. It’s because the insurance was and is part of the pay, that assuages the church’s beiefs and an removes and complicity in contreception. Once they pay the insurance that money is no longer thiers and the choices of the employee are none of thier responsibility. > [@](#): > > It can reasonably expect that it will. And there’s one way to make certain that it doesn’t-- let the Church have an exemption. Sure , just it can be pretty sure some employees will use thier wages to committ all kinds of sins. Since they’ve already assuaged thier religious conscoence in the wages department, they can apply that same reasonming and justfication to benefits. We pay them. they choose what to do with it. > [@](#): > > Religious freedom is part of the 1st amendment. I wouldn’t call that “no good reason”. It would be if thier religious freedom was being violated. I matain it isn’t and thier complaint is false. > [@](#): > > Again, your “shifting the money” argument doesn’t hold water. It can be used to justify anything. Might as well buy you kids crack if you know they’ll use their allowance to buy it. It’s just a matter of shifting the money around! Not only is that a false argument it’s not even one that favors your position. According to your principle, the church is violating it’s own religious principles by paying people when they know some of those wages will buy birth control. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/47 "2012-02-03T01:45:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re right. I should have said “significantly narrowing the scope of the exemption” rather than “taking it away”. Do you happen to know exactly what the scope of the exemption is, because I can’t seem to find any real details out there. Also, at one point you said “let the Church have an exemption.” How would “your” exemption differ from the actual one? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/48 "2012-02-03T01:48:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The difference is that once the employee receives the money, it no longer belongs to the Church. You’re essentially saying that the Church should be OK buying anything for its employees that the Employees would buy for themselves. I don’t think that’s the point. The church is buying insurance. Obviously the church would _prefer_ that people do not avail themselves of the birth control offered by the insurance. But the church isn’t buying birth control. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/49 "2012-02-03T01:49:26Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I agree, I’d like to fund birth control in our public health system somehow but saying that the right to health care supersedes the First Amendment is not a good argument. The issue isn’t at all whether it supercedes the 1st amendment. The question is, is the 1st amendment being violated? The church are not being denied this exemption for an actual church, building, but for employees of a school or hospital operated by the church. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/50 "2012-02-03T01:51:28Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I don’t think that’s the point. The church is buying insurance. Obviously the church would _prefer_ that people do not avail themselves of the birth control offered by the insurance. But the church isn’t buying birth control. Exactly ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/51 "2012-02-03T01:52:04Z")
> [@TripleFail](#): > > ummm you clearly havnt read what I said but here it is again: > " I ask this because without solid [Biblical] reasoning they can just say anything is sinful and refuse to comply with society on any issue." > I really don’t know how to put this clearer, saying religious organization don’t have to justify any view point not even from Biblical source kind of speaks volumes. It’s the other way around. The government has to have a compelling reason to prevent people from “free exercise” of religion. So, tell me again why the government has a compelling reason to force Churches to violate their beliefs about birth control? I know the answer when it comes to human sacrifice, but I’m struggling to understand how that extends to birth control. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/52 "2012-02-03T01:52:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Religious freedom is part of the 1st amendment. I wouldn’t call that “no good reason”. So I assume you’re equally outraged by the rulings that the Native Americans can’t smoke peyote during religious ceremonies and the Rastas can’t smoke the ganja. Right? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/53 "2012-02-03T01:56:41Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I don’t think that’s the point. The church is buying insurance. Obviously the church would _prefer_ that people do not avail themselves of the birth control offered by the insurance. But the church isn’t buying birth control. Go back to my analogy with the Mustang Ranch. Let’s change that the Church giving vacation benefits in the form of certificates redeemable at Mace’s Travel Services. One of our services is a tour of Nevada Brothels, and a sampling of the entertainment there. The Church shouldn’t care, right, since they don’t know if any of their employees are choosing that option. Why should they object to using Mace’s Travel Service as opposed to Eris’s Travel Services, which has no Nevada Brothel plan? **Zakalwe** : Your example is actually an argument in favor of the exemption. It’s another case of the government waiving a law in deference to religious freedom. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/54 "2012-02-03T01:59:43Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not saying anything like that. > > I’m saying they are supplying a health care package where birth control is one option or service among thousands of possibilities. They are not directly paying for any specific service. Under Obama’s rules, churches are being forced to offer insurance plans that specifically pay for birth control. From the church’s perspective, that is a different category of spending than wages to an employee that the employee can choose to spend on anything. You may feel that the two are equivalent, but obviously some churches do not feel that way, and they are not obligated to think as you think. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Yes there is because birth control is tied to health and is a basic right we offer in this country. It supersedes religious freedoms Uh, cite please? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/55 "2012-02-03T02:04:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Zakalwe** : Your example is actually an argument in favor of the exemption. It’s another case of the government waiving a law in deference to religious freedom. Huh? The government said, “nope, don’t care about the religious aspect, drug laws apply to everyone.” How is that an argument in favor of religious exemption? ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/56 "2012-02-03T02:04:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Zakalwe** : Your example is actually an argument in favor of the exemption. It’s another case of the government waiving a law in deference to religious freedom. It is appropriate that governments grant exemptions to houses of worship in some cases. Is this or is this not being provided in the current contraception exemption? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/57 "2012-02-03T02:07:43Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > It is appropriate that governments grant exemptions to houses of worship in some cases. Is this or is this not being provided in the current contraception exemption? The 1st amendment is not limited to houses of worship. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/58 "2012-02-03T02:08:13Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Under Obama’s rules, churches are being forced to offer insurance plans that specifically pay for birth control. From the church’s perspective, that is a different category of spending than wages to an employee that the employee can choose to spend on anything. You may feel that the two are equivalent, but obviously some churches do not feel that way, and they are not obligated to think as you think. Churches have an exemption. Church-affiliated organizations and are the ones being forced to offer such plan. As I have said, I can’t find much in the way of details about the exemption, but it does exsit. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/59 "2012-02-03T02:11:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The 1st amendment is not limited to houses of worship. No, it is not. What exactly are you getting at here? Since you mentioned an exemption, it seems that an appropriate one would satisfy your objections to the new regulations. That is really what I’m trying to get at. ---
**Author:** ![TripleFail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@TripleFail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TripleFail)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/60 "2012-02-03T02:22:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s the other way around. The government has to have a compelling reason to prevent people from “free exercise” of religion. So, tell me again why the government has a compelling reason to force Churches to violate their beliefs about birth control? I know the answer when it comes to human sacrifice, but I’m struggling to understand how that extends to birth control. Consider the right to have children is under Article 16.1 in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one could argue easily that it’s a right NOT to have children. I think most people would agree on that. Then considered exemption is still in place for House of Worship, so basically place run by religious people. The exemption is axed for “religious-affiliated institutions such as hospitals, colleges and charities” quoted form previous poster. I imagine these institutions would have non religious workers and by saying the church can deny the workers rights is compelling enough reason. Though I have to say contraceptive is part of family planning which is considered important for the whole of society thus everyone should pitch in. Same reason why people don’t have children have to pay more tax then those who do. Having bunch of unplanned/unwanted children is definitely not good for society, but is it big enough problem to force everyone to pay that’s the real question. No need to drag religion into it with its non existent reasoning to muddle the debate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570.md?page=4)