US law is subject to the US constitution. The latter is never going to be subjugate to the UDoHR.
From the Church’s perspective, it makes no difference whether they are forced to by the product for Catholics or non-Catholics. There is a trivially simple way for the government to make sure people can have access to birth control. There is no need to make Churches provide it, and hence no compelling interest for the state to carve out an exemption to the 1st Amendment.
I think I agree with all of that, if by the last sentence you mean we should be taking care of this as a society, through our government, and not forcing non-governmental agencies to fill that role. Did I get that right?
Churches are not being made to provide contraception, church-affiliated organizations are. It seems to me that an appropriate exemption in your mind would be one that included these organizations. Is that accurate?
Yes I understand UDoHR like everything else from UN is more of guideline then law, but US did adopt it. Anyway I think majority of people would agree that the option NOT to have children should be a right.
Also it make all the difference if the church was in a employer-employee relationship since they have to take on the responsibilities as such. They are no longer simply just a church where people can go in volunteer, listen to sermon and bugger off if they don’t like it. As an employer they have to act like every other employers, to make one exception for religion employing people means they have to make exception for all other religions so not to play favorites.
As for last point the government makes us pay for shit we don’t want, I personally don’t like playing the accountant game on how the money is paid as long as the government spend the money wisely helping the people who it;s founded on. Following the tax system can make anyone throw up. This contraceptive issue is just making church pay up to help out what the government think is good for all of the people religious or not religious. The religious people/organization still have cough up like every other employer and they can still practice their religion by not using the service provided by government.
I think the church caring is obviously a different stick to measure by. The church cares about every fucking thing.
Because it in no way interferes with the ability to practice religion. Obviously, they will care, because that’s the way religions roll. But is the government forcing women to have abortions and go on the pill? Does it staple condoms to penises? Does it force Catholics to dedicate ten minutes of every mass to discussing sexually transmitted disease prevention? I mean, some things are non-negotiable. Apparently—and it surprises me—apparently that insurance companies have to cover birth control is now one of those things.
Guess they should have thought of this before they demanded people teach abstinence in schools? (Not that I think this is revenge.)
Well, be that as it may, I don’t know how you translate that into making Religiously funded organizations pay for that “right”.
Yes, they have to act like any other employer except when there is no compelling reason to do so when doing so violates their religious beliefs.
We’re not talking about the government spending money. We’re talking about Religious groups spending money.
This is not a tax. It’s forcing a religious group to purchase a product that violates the tenets of its religion.
But I have to say that, having thought about this a bit, the fact the government allows the religious group to pay a fine instead of purchasing the insurance is probably a good out. It would be analogous to the Church paying sales tax that ends up financing contraceptives. I’ll withdraw my assertion that this will not pass muster in a SCOTUS challenge, as long as that opt out is available.
A question for anyone who might know. Would the Catholic Church object to the use of birth control for women whose life would be endangered by a pregnancy? What about the same pills used to treat a hormonal imbalance?
Even without the religious freedom problem, it’s a violation of common sense. A person’s need for contraception is both predictable and common, which is exactly the sort of expense that should never be insured.
All your insurance is doing is taking $11 and giving $10 back.
Grumman: You bring up a point that I was loathe to address, but might as well jump in. This is a perfect highlight of how fucked up this whole approach is. We’re trying to shoehorn UHC into an employer mandated insurance program. It’s the worst of both worlds. Insurance is structured to be a way to pool resources so that the few who have unexpected major expenses don’t have to face those expenses alone. We might was well include “food” in this bill since everyone requires food to live, right? It’s a basic health care issue.
Except that women over the age of needing birth control (and men) help fund it. And there are more types than the pill. An IUD is a relatively expensive method - but done only rarely.
What’s to prevent a church organization from declaring all medical treatments against their religion and hence exempt from buying any insurance?
The purpose of these laws is to force employers to do things they might not want to do, for the good of the employees. If you can make an exemption for any reason you pull out of your ass and deem religious, it kinda defeats the purpose.
I think the question here boils down to ‘can the government forces companies to provide coverage for elective medical treatments’. So as an example, could the government require companies to provide coverage for cosmetic surgery? I think it’s stupid to have the goverment require companies to provide health insurance at all. It’s part of the problem with healthcare IMHO. But in this context, contraceptives are the question, and except for limited circumstances, they are not a necessity.
Sorry, poorly stated. It’s stupid for the government to regulate what insurance employer’s provide, and to incentivize the current system of employer paid insurance.
That’s true they’re not, but at some point thier complaint and their requested exemption has to be examined to see if it’s legitimate or not. They don’t automatically get to alter insurance polcies and remove choices from thier workers on a whim. They have to justify it.
