Is the Contraception mandate a violation of religious freedom?

[erislover]

@TriPolar

Sorry, poorly stated. It’s stupid for the government to regulate what insurance employer’s provide

Maybe you should start a thread on that, because I’d imagine there’s much to say but it’d be a little outside the scope of this thread.

[cosmosdan]

@Fiddle_Peghead

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?

Even church affiliated orginizations aren’t. They purchase insurance as part of thier employees compensation. The employee , and thier physician, determine what they need. There is no direct payment for contraceptives by the church of its affiliates.

[cosmosdan]

@John_Mace

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.

Another option, if possible under current law, is to pay the insurance money to the employee first , since giving it to them seems to absolve the church from violating their religious principles. They already have an available out as far as jusitifying it in thier minds , but if they need another it seems like it’s easy to create.

[cosmosdan]

@TriPolar

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.

Well no, that’s a perfectly valid question and subject for discussion but it’s not the one for this thread.

The question is in the thread title.

[cosmosdan]

@Revtim

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 that’s a valid point and applies to my thinking in the OP. The church already has a perfectly valid out to assuage thier religious beliefs and rather than take it by simply looking at things differently, they want to complain about thier religious freedom being violated.

That said, I doubt anyone could suddnly make up beliefs and then apply for an exemption.

[TriPolar]

@erislover

Maybe you should start a thread on that, because I’d imagine there’s much to say but it’d be a little outside the scope of this thread.

@cosmosdan

Another option, if possible under current law, is to pay the insurance money to the employee first , since giving it to them seems to absolve the church from violating their religious principles. They already have an available out as far as jusitifying it in thier minds , but if they need another it seems like it’s easy to create.

I’m not trying to take over, or sidetrack, this thread. That’s just my generalized opinion. 'Nuff said. Carry on.

[John_Mace]

@Revtim

What’s to prevent a church organization from declaring all medical treatments against their religion and hence exempt from buying any insurance?

That’s a good question, and has yet to be resolved. Snopes thinks the Amish will be exempt, but isn’t sure about groups like Christian Science members. Link.

@cosmosdan

Another option, if possible under current law, is to pay the insurance money to the employee first…

Better yet, get employers out of the business of controlling HC for employees. We don’t require employers to provide food stamps to employees. We have this thing called money that people can use to buy whatever they want, included things mandated by the government.

[Lobohan]

The Church is utterly wrong here. I don’t care if your backwards, bronze-age religion thinks that eye-glasses or antibiotics or contraceptives are evil. If you offer someone healthcare, it should be based on the rules of the nation. It’s up to your employees to decide that they want to avoid the proscribed healthcare.

For fuck sake, every person employed by the church can spend the money they make to get a hand-job in Vegas. Why isn’t there an uproar about this? Why can’t the Church demand that the government provide non-handjob dollars, specifically for paying church employees?

If your religion proscribes certain actions, don’t do those actions. Don’t demand that the people you pay don’t have the *option *for those actions.

[erislover]

@John_Mace

Better yet, get employers out of the business of controlling HC for employees. We don’t require employers to provide food stamps to employees. We have this thing called money that people can use to buy whatever they want, included things mandated by the government.

Employers aren’t required to provide health care for their employees. If the market has decided it’s the best solution, there’s probably a reason for that. Diversifying risk and reducing transaction costs are the first two things that come to my mind. This doesn’t really apply to food so much. At least, I don’t actually understand your analogy.

[John_Mace]

@erislover

Employers aren’t required to provide health care for their employees. If the market has decided it’s the best solution, there’s probably a reason for that.

The reason now is that employers get a tax deduction for doing so. You don’t. That’s not “the market” speaking. That’s the government interfering with the market. The reason going forward is that, yes, they are required to do so. Any company with 50 or more employees must either provide insurance or pay a fine. But the tax favorability remains. So the system remains heavily biased towards employer provided health insurance.

Diversifying risk and reducing transaction costs are the first two things that come to my mind. This doesn’t really apply to food so much. At least, I don’t actually understand your analogy.

Look at the post I was responding to. The poster was suggesting paying the insurance money to the employee first. Why not just give them “money” instead of “insurance money”?

[Lobohan]

@John_Mace

The reason now is that employers get a tax deduction for doing so. You don’t. That’s not “the market” speaking. That’s the government interfering with the market. The reason going forward is that, yes, they are required to do so. Any company with 50 or more employees must either provide insurance or pay a fine. But the tax favorability remains. So the system remains heavily biased towards employer provided health insurance.
Look at the post I was responding to. The poster was suggesting paying the insurance money to the employee first. Why not just give them “money” instead of “insurance money”?

Because the employer model is the shitty system we’re stuck with until the conservative parts of the country calm the fuck down about single-payer.

[John_Mace]

@Lobohan

The Church is utterly wrong here. I don’t care if your backwards, bronze-age religion thinks that eye-glasses or antibiotics or contraceptives are evil. If you offer someone healthcare, it should be based on the rules of the nation. It’s up to your employees to decide that they want to avoid the proscribed healthcare.

For fuck sake, every person employed by the church can spend the money they make to get a hand-job in Vegas. Why isn’t there an uproar about this? Why can’t the Church demand that the government provide non-handjob dollars, specifically for paying church employees?

If your religion proscribes certain actions, don’t do those actions. Don’t demand that the people you pay don’t have the *option *for those actions.

This is a false argument, along the lines of claiming that denying someone money to publish their work is a form of censorship. Anyone working for the RCC can purchase birth control to their heart’s content. If they can’t afford it, they can go to planned parenthood office and receive help doing so. The Church is not demanding their employees don’t have the option, the Church doesn’t want to be part of the option. Planned Parenthood on wikipedia, emphasis added.

PPFA is a federation of 85 independent Planned Parenthood affiliates around the U.S.[1] These affiliates together operate more than 820 health centers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.[1][30] The largest of these facilities, a $26 million, 78,000-square-foot (7,200 m2) structure was completed in Houston, Texas in May 2010.[31] This serves as a headquarters for 12 clinics in Texas and Louisiana.[31] Together, they are the largest family planning services provider in the U.S. with over four million activists, supporters and donors.[32][33][34] Planned Parenthood is staffed by 27,000 staff members and volunteers.[35]

They serve over five million clients a year, 26% of which are teenagers under the age of 19.[36] According to Planned Parenthood, 75% of their clients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level.[35]
Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion.

[Lobohan]

@John_Mace

This is a false argument, along the lines of claiming that denying someone money to publish their work is a form of censorship. Anyone working for the RCC can purchase birth control to their heart’s content. If they can’t afford it, they can go to planned parenthood office and receive help doing so. The Church is not demanding their employees don’t have the option, the Church doesn’t want to be part of the option. Planned Parenthood on wikipedia, emphasis added.

You’re still mixed up on this. Say that the church requires that you only drink 2% milk. And they decide to give their employees a gift certificate to a local dairy.

If the government passes a law requiring that a gift certificate has to be able to buy any good at the dairy, including whole milk and cottage cheese, is the church being oppressed?

Their rule is to only drink 2%. If their employees want to, they can only drink 2%. But they have the freedom to buy whatever they want, who cares if the person who gave them the gift certificate is upset?

The church is free to not provide insurance, or to pay for medical bills directly.

[erislover]

@John_Mace

The reason now is that employers get a tax deduction for doing so. You don’t.

Hmm. It was my understanding that paying for insurance was pre-tax. Maybe that’s when you pay into a company plan, though.

That’s the government interfering with the market.

Well I took a ton of shit for the mere suggestion that maybe companies shouldn’t get to deduct so much, I’m loathe to even get into the topic again.

The reason going forward is that, yes, they are required to do so. Any company with 50 or more employees must either provide insurance or pay a fine.

I see.

Look at the post I was responding to. The poster was suggesting paying the insurance money to the employee first. Why not just give them “money” instead of “insurance money”?

And if the conditions for employment with the church were that you don’t use your money to buy birth control, is that something you feel should be negotiable? Or is this none of the employer’s business?

[Nars_Glinley]

@Lobohan

For fuck sake, every person employed by the church can spend the money they make to get a hand-job in Vegas. Why isn’t there an uproar about this? Why can’t the Church demand that the government provide non-handjob dollars, specifically for paying church employees?

You don’t think there would be an uproar if the government required church sponsored institutions to provide gift certificates for Vegas handjobs in addition to their regular pay? Of course, people would be free to use them or not.

[Lobohan]

@Nars_Glinley

You don’t think there would be an uproar if the government required church sponsored institutions to provide gift certificates for Vegas handjobs in addition to their regular pay? Of course, people would be free to use them or not.

The government isn’t requiring the church to provide insurance. They are requiring insurance to provide reproduction care.

The church is free to not provide insurance. And even if it does, the people with the insurance are free to not use reproduction care.

Every time the church pays someone a wage it is giving them the opportunity to sin. They accept that those people will deal with that opportunity.

[John_Mace]

@Lobohan

You’re still mixed up on this. Say that the church requires that you only drink 2% milk. And they decide to give their employees a gift certificate to a local dairy.

If the government passes a law requiring that a gift certificate has to be able to buy any good at the dairy, including whole milk and cottage cheese, is the church being oppressed?

Their rule is to only drink 2%. If their employees want to, they can only drink 2%. But they have the freedom to buy whatever they want, who cares if the person who gave them the gift certificate is upset?

The church is free to not provide insurance, or to pay for medical bills directly.

It’s not about oppression or people being upset. The Church is required by the government to buy a product that violates the tenets of the Church when there is no compelling societal interest in doing so. I think the 1st amendment should trump the government’s action in that case.

Having said that, the law, as written, allows an opt-out which the Church can take instead of purchasing the product. They have to pay a fine, but they are not purchasing the product.

[erislover]

@John_Mace

It’s not about oppression or people being upset. The Church is required by the government to buy a product that violates the tenets of the Church when there is no compelling societal interest in doing so.

No compelling societal interest in reducing teen pregnancy or STD transmission? What society do you live in?

[Sinaptics]

Is this just for the pill? Or does it cover additional forms of birth control such as IUD, diaphrams, et al.?

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@cosmosdan

Even church affiliated orginizations aren’t. They purchase insurance as part of thier employees compensation. The employee , and thier physician, determine what they need. There is no direct payment for contraceptives by the church of its affiliates.

Insurance plans offered by houses of worship are not required to provide contraceptives, only insurance plans offered by church-affiliated organizations.

How’s that?