Compelling interest is the term generally used, and that was the basis of the dissent in OR v. Smith, above. It was also O’Connor’s position even thoiugh she voted to uphold the law (finding a compelling interest existed). I’m not certain the current SCOTUS would disregard the “compelling interest” argument although that’s probably a moot point because of the opt out clause in this case. So it’s not like the “compelling interest” argument is some obscure legal opinion.
So again, I ask what great social problem is the Obama administration trying to address here that they find it necessary to encourage Catholic (and other) institutions to abandon their practice of offering health insurance to their employees in favor of paying a fine? Just how many people in the current system are unable to get birth control? Millions? Thousands? A dozen?
And, further, I find the idea that we need to compel private insurance companies to pay for birth control to be just a big subsidy to the middle class, the vast majority of whom can well afford to buy it themselves. What’s next, making insurance companies pay for toothpaste and dental floss? But that’s really a topic for another thread.
I agree. The first amendment does not apply here. A catholic-affiliated hospital, for example, is not a church. Those are exempt. Isn’t it just that simple, or what am I missing?
I wanted to shsre this from the comments section of HuffPoon the same subject. I hope that’s okay moderators.
It was also noted that a huge % of Catholics ignore the church’s postion on this and use contreceptives. IMO it’s ridiculous for them to try and defend this on the grounds of conscience, but I’m glad to have the issue out there for people to examine. Beliefs and arcane traditions need to be challanged and expoused. Thank you Mr President for helping that to happen.
I wasn’t dissing the term itself but questioning how it’s applied and the subjectiveness of what is or isn’t compelling. The question is more complex than you’ve repsented it.
Is a church or a hospital , open to the public and staffed by the public even elligible for an exemption because of thier affiliation? Is buying an insurance package that goes with wages, even violating their beliefs, since they are not being asked to directly purchase birth control. Since most of thier church members already use birth control and ignore this belief why would they impose it on non church members by manipulating details of thier insurance. Should they also be allowed to select insurance coverage ala carte and just label any service a violation?
You’re loading the question. The compelling interest is the equal and fair trreatment of employees. It’s already well established that churches, much less thier affiliates, are not exempt from obeying the law because of thier beliefs. Maybe reminding them of that is enough of a compelling interest.
Then there’s the nessecary question of whether affiliates are granted exemptions in the same way the actual church is. There are already guidelines for that as well. If you have a school or a hospital that is open to the public and employs a large group of people who do not share your faith , why should you get an exemption? You’re not a church.
Which I stated in the OP. I think that issue is about prescription drugs and insurance companies being selective about what they cover and why. But that’s another thread.
Personally, from what I’ve read, I’m glad the discussion is going on because it’s exactly this type of conflict that makes people aware of arcane beliefs amd think about where the lines need to be drawn. Religious beliefs do not warrent any exemption in the public stage of ideas and rational thinking. This arcane nonsense that even thier own members have rejected needs to go.
According to a quick Google search, you can buy condoms at $7 for a dozen in the United States. How can you not afford sixty cents for a condom? And even if you can’t, how can you justify using that as an excuse to screw over everyone else in the country, by compelling them to buy a counterproductive product they don’t want or need?
Catholics are still free to not use these services. They are still free to practice their religion. They are not free to push their view onto the health care industry.
Besides not even coming close to answering the question you quoted, they are not “pushing their view onto the health care industry”. They are being forced to purchase a product that conflicts with their religious beliefs. The health care industry can sell whatever they want to whomever is willing to buy it.
Like legal minority, religious freedom is supposed to be a shield, not a club. Some churches try to force their taboos on everyone, whether or not those persons belong to that denomination. Argue all you want, but if you are an equal opportunity employer, you need to make reasonable accommodations for all employees. Those that agree with your doctrine will not violate your conscience. Employees choices are simply not the concern of employers.
If the purchase of this product compelled women to get abortions and use the pill, I could definitely see the argument and it would be totally unfortunate. But it doesn’t force actual Catholics to do anything.
I think that I agree with John Mace’s position that there seems to be a lacking compelling interest in the state forcing organisations to provide birth control when there are obvious groups that are opposed to it. In the US contraceptives are plentiful and cheap, so I don’t really see the need for it. Without such an interest the state should allow organisations to do what they want in this matter. I suspect that much of the support here is really just anti-religious sentiment generally and anti-Catholic sentiment specifically. FWIW I have no problem with contraceptives, but I also have no interest in expecting people that do to break their consciences if they do.
Given the freedom to choose many companies would freely choose to offer contraceptives, because paying for contraceptives is cheaper than paying for unwanted pregnancies. Those groups that did not want to provide them may end up paying higher health premiums, but if they are willing to do that then the state should let them.
As a genuine question to those that think contraceptives should be on the list of mandatory services, how would you feel if were a company owner and some proceedure that you disagreed with was included? Say for instance homosexual reparative counselling was one of the included “must haves”. Would you say that it has nothing to do with you as the insurance provider, because people have to choose to take this offer up? Or would you be offended that your money was going to something that you considered abhorrent? If you would complain about that, then I think you might understand how Catholics and others feel about the birth control issue.
That’s non-responsive. The question was about forcing a company to purchase insurance that offered reparative homosexual counseling, not an intrusion in doctor/patient confidentiality.
And if my doctor prescribes me medical marijuana, my company makes it their business and will fire me.
Again, what the church finds offensive is birth control. They’re free to feel that way, and church members and employees and atheists and everyone else in the land can refuse birth control for religious reasons or because they rolled a d20 before heading into the doctor’s office. Nothing has changed there. Catholics are just as free as before to practice their own religion.
Again I think you seem to be avoiding the question. Of course people can choose what health services they access, but they do that either way. The question is about what health care services should business assist their employees accessing in providing health care coverage. Would you be happy with some of your health care money going to pay for homosexual reparative therapy?
Let me put it another way, since it seems my direct answer isn’t considered a direct answer. If Tufts, Harvard, and Blue Cross all offer homosexual reparative therapy, it doesn’t really matter if my plan offerings to my employees from these companies doesn’t because I hate teh gays. It isn’t like the insurance companies have taken money from my business and set it aside so that these dollars specifically aren’t used for whatever services because I don’t like them. If the insurance company has an obligation, it meets it, and it will use my dollars to do so if that’s what it has.
Despite your seeming economic determinism, I think your decisions as an individual consumer do matter. If you and enough others decide to not support health care funds that include reparative therapy, you can drive the ones that do out of business through lack of customers. In a free market economy your purchasing power is one of the things that you can use to effect change in the society. This is really the whole premise behind the “fair trade” and other similar movements. Using consumer power to effect change in the way workers are treated in the third world by lowering the demand (and therefore price) of goods produced by unethical means.
This legislation is effectively taking that power away from those that don’t agree with contraceptives by forcing them to buy insurance that includes them anyway. Granted, they may be a small minority and their purchasing power may not add up to very much, but still they should have the right to exercise that power if they choose to. Unless there is some real problem that the law is trying to solve then it is simply a case of taking away the rights of people for no good reason.
So I still don’t think you have really answered the question. Usually something that is considered a straight answer contains either the word yes or no, with of course explaination/qualifications if that is felt to be needed.
Condoms are cheap, yes, but what about the other forms of contraception? Condoms require the man to us them as well as them woman; not always as easy as it sounds.
And they’re not foolproof.
What about, say hysterectomies? They could, in some cases, be counted as ‘contraception.’