# Obama Admin. violating 1st amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878 "2012-11-13T13:21:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/21 "2012-11-13T16:06:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not that. > > No one is being forced to forego anything. The employees are free to purchase contraceptives if they want. The employer is asking that they not have to subsidize that purchase. The law is that large employers have to provide health care or pay a penalty. The employer shouldn’t be able to provide shittier health care just because he feels it is morally right. Your assertion that they can “just buy it themselves” is nonsense. Yeah, they can also just pay for medical care out of pocket. That completely ignores the point of employers providing health care. ---
**Author:** ![cman89](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e0b2c6/32.png) [@cman89](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cman89)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/22 "2012-11-13T16:06:14Z")
I understand the purpose of the equality law, however, nobody is forced to work for any employer at any time. We make the personal choice to obtain a job with whatever entity/company/etc… we choose. Given this element of choice, I do not agree that employers should have certain mandates forced upon them, such as contraception, if it violates a religious belief. Besides, if individuals disagree with a potential employer’s beliefs, they will choose not to work for them, and if enough individuals make that choice, then the employer may have to change their modus operandi. Such is the beauty of a free economy ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/23 "2012-11-13T16:07:21Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Ummm, but in your example the employee is using money that they got from the employer to purchase the contraceptives, so the employer is still subsidizing that purchase. It ceases to be the employer’s money when it is a benefit negotiated with the employee. Employers don’t get to tell employees what to do with their wages, nor their insurance benefits. It’s not their money any more. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/24 "2012-11-13T16:11:10Z")
> [@cman89](#): > > I understand the purpose of the equality law, however, nobody is forced to work for any employer at any time. We make the personal choice to obtain a job with whatever entity/company/etc.. we choose. Given this element of choice, I do not agree that employers should have certain mandates forced upon them, such as contraception, if it violates a religious belief. Besides, if individuals disagree with a potential employer’s beliefs, they will choose not to work for them, and if enough individuals make that choice, then the employer may have to change their modus operandi. Such is the beauty of a free economy The employers also make a personal choice to become employers. They don’t get to decide what laws to break based on their personal feelings. As said below, should a Jehovah’s Witness be able to provide coverage without blood transfusions? Should one of those insane prayer-only people only pay for in-home prayer leaders? What if the employer is anti-vax? What if the employer is a vegan, can the refuse to provide the services of a nutritionist? What if the employer believes that anal stimulation is awesome, can they require that only suppositories are covered? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/25 "2012-11-13T16:16:53Z")
> [@cman89](#): > > I understand the purpose of the equality law, however, nobody is forced to work for any employer at any time. Unfortunately the state of health care in this country is such that a lot of people couldn’t afford health insurance if their employer didn’t agree to help cover the cost and made it part of their compensation. > [@Marley23](#): > > Wasn’t this rule altered so that the contraception coverage is actually being provided by the insurance company at no cost to the employer? [By the way the answer to this question is yes.](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57484277-10391704/free-contraception-for-women-provision-of-obama-health-care-law-starts-today/) Religious organizations are not obliged to cover contraception. It’s provided by the insurer free of charge. > [@](#): > > According to the White House Office of the Press Secretary, the policy also ensures that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge. ---
**Author:** ![Noone\_Special](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/noone_special/32/2863_2.png) [@Noone\_Special](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noone_Special)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/26 "2012-11-13T16:19:31Z")
How about an employer that feels that the taxes his company pays are being used for purposes he disagrees with on religious grounds? Is he exempt from paying income tax? (let’s leave the issue of exemptions for religious institutions aside, for the moment, that’s a whole 'nother kettle of fish…) Because this pretty much amounts to the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![SouthernGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/82dd89/32.png) [@SouthernGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SouthernGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/27 "2012-11-13T16:20:24Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > Seems like a pretty clearly cut case to me. > > You do not get to impose your religious beliefs on others. Period. Not your friends, not your neighbors, not even your employees. Absolutely true, but at which point does the other side of that line get crossed? Those who are religious business owners are being forced to pay for something they consider a sin in their own religion. Anyone who says “too bad” is just as bad as the religious zealots who impose their religious philosophies onto others. (hypothetical)“Oh you must provide birth control because denying your employees this is **now** against the law. No, don’t care if this violates your personal beliefs. Stop imposing your ideals on us you prick!” I understand what those of you defending this law are saying, but do you see what I mean? On the one hand the employees should be provided the same benefits as everyone else according to law, but this also shouldn’t enfringe the employers religious beliefs regardless of motive. One could easily say to choose a different employer that provide the benefits that suit you. A bit of a grey area for me. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/28 "2012-11-13T16:21:44Z")
I think that’s the key point everyone is trying to get across. Religious beliefs aren’t something that trumps rational laws. It should never be. The examples given illustrate the fact that religious beliefs are irrational. They have no place whatsoever in deciding what healthcare is available to anyone. That’s the point. If there is a rational reason for not including contraceptives as part of a healthy, safe, sound, and viable base level of healthcare, then god damn it, point it out. Don’t hold up your book of bronze age sheep herder “wisdom” and expect that to settle the debate. ---
**Author:** ![otternell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecc23a/32.png) [@otternell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/otternell)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/29 "2012-11-13T16:25:50Z")
Let’s not forget that the State of MO already had a [case over this issue](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/01/missouri-court-yes-the-feds-can-mandate-contraceptive-coverage/). Allow me to simply say based on that case - good luck to you then. > [@](#): > > Frank O’Brien is not prevented from keeping the Sabbath, from providing a religious upbringing for his children, or from participating in a religious ritual such as communion. Instead, plaintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives. > > The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by OIH’s plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. > > This Court rejects the proposition that requiring indirect financial support of a practice, from which plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles, constitutes a substantial burden on plaintiff’s religious exercise. ---
**Author:** ![SouthernGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/82dd89/32.png) [@SouthernGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SouthernGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/30 "2012-11-13T16:26:43Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Wasn’t this rule altered so that the contraception coverage is actually being provided by the insurance company at no cost to the employer? > **[Fact Checking Free Birth Control Day](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/fact-checking-free-birth-control-day/story?id=16900144#.UKJur4l5mc0)** > > Insurance companies have to start providing co-pay free birth control today, but only a small fraction of women will be able to cash in on the benefit. "Women who get their insurance through their religiously-affiliated employer will have to keep paying those contraception co-pays for the next year as well. The Obama administration gave religiously-affiliated employers, such as some universities and hospitals, a one-year exemption to the free birth control requirement after many raised religious objections to paying for something they consider a sin. Those religious organizations still have to provide insurance that offers the seven other services cited in the women’s health rule taking effect today at no cost to employees. Those co-pay free services include: a yearly well-woman doctors visit, HPV testing, gestational diabetes testing for pregnant women, counseling for sexually transmitted diseases, HIV screening and counseling, breast pumps and domestic violence counseling. So in reality, the only women who can stroll out of the pharmacy with free birth control are those who have private insurance, whose plans have changed since March 2010, who do not work for religious organizations and whose plans either begin August 1 or whose insurance companies have decided to offer the benefit earlier than required by law." ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/31 "2012-11-13T16:27:59Z")
> [@SouthernGuy](#): > > Absolutely true, but at which point does the other side of that line get crossed? Those who are religious business owners are being forced to pay for something they consider a sin in their own religion. Anyone who says “too bad” is just as bad as the religious zealots who impose their religious philosophies onto others. (hypothetical)“Oh you must provide birth control because denying your employees this is **now** against the law. No, don’t care if this violates your personal beliefs. Stop imposing your ideals on us you prick!” > > I understand what those of you defending this law are saying, but do you see what I mean? On the one hand the employees should be provided the same benefits as everyone else according to law, but this also shouldn’t enfringe the employers religious beliefs regardless of motive. One could easily say to choose a different employer that provide the benefits that suit you. A bit of a grey area for me. What line is being crossed? As pointed out, should we allow Christian Scientist employers to forgo healthcare altogether? My guess is that you would say no, we can’t allow THAT. Why not? The argument is the same. You are insisting that religious reasons somehow, and at least in some cases, trumps rational decisions, regardless of the societal good. On what basis? Certainly not a rational one. If you, or these catholic employers think they have a rational reason for not including contraception as part fo a base healthcare, they should let legislators in on the big secret. But they don’t. Their reason amounts to: because my interpretation of my holy book told me so. That is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/32 "2012-11-13T16:28:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not that. > > No one is being forced to forego anything. The employees are free to purchase contraceptives if they want. The employer is asking that they not have to subsidize that purchase. > > . Some faiths don’t like Social Security or Federal Income tax. So, if their employees were _free to pay their own_, even both halves of SocSec would that be OK too? I mean, all that is happening is that the ‘_employer is asking that they not subsidize"_ that payment, right? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/33 "2012-11-13T16:32:55Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > It ceases to be the employer’s money when it is a benefit negotiated with the employee. Employers don’t get to tell employees what to do with their wages, nor their insurance benefits. It’s not their money any more. I don’t think insurance is negotiated with the employee. Companies have a plan or plans and employees have the option of taking the plan or not. Employers negotiate with the insurance companies to provide specific plans for their employees. It would cease to be the employers’ money if they gave their employees a fixed amount of money to purchase whatever plan they want. This is theoretical since I fully understand the problem of individuals taking this money and purchasing insurance on their own. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/34 "2012-11-13T16:36:55Z")
> [@SouthernGuy](#): > > Anyone who says “too bad” is just as bad as the religious zealots who impose their religious philosophies onto others. False equivalence alert. Making something available on the principle that everybody should have access to it is not the same as trying to prevent someone from doing something because you don’t want to pay for it. > [@](#): > > On the one hand the employees should be provided the same benefits as everyone else according to law, but this also shouldn’t enfringe the employers religious beliefs regardless of motive. If you’re opposed to contraception for religious reasons, don’t use it. I am not convinced that your freedom of religion extends to picking a health plan that doesn’t choose contraception (and women take contraceptives for reasons beyond trying not to get pregnant) regardless of the religion of your employees. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/35 "2012-11-13T16:49:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not that. > > No one is being forced to forego anything. The employees are free to purchase contraceptives if they want. The employer is asking that they not have to subsidize that purchase. > > At any rate, this will have to play itself out in the courts, and I’m not really sure which way the cookie is going to crumble. And if the religion had prohibitions against (expensive and inconvenient) employee safety laws? ---
**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:** [November 13, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/36 "2012-11-13T16:52:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Some faiths don’t like Social Security or Federal Income tax. So, if their employees were _free to pay their own_, even both halves of SocSec would that be OK too? I mean, all that is happening is that the ‘_employer is asking that they not subsidize"_ that payment, right? :rolleyes: Uhm, yes sometimes it is. The Amish are not required to pay FICA. This is not always going to swing just one way or the other. There are conflicting interests involved, and that’s what the courts will have to figure out. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/37 "2012-11-13T17:22:30Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I don’t think insurance is negotiated with the employee. Health insurance is a benefit negotiated with the employee when they are first hired, along with salary, vacation, retirement and other benefits. Health insurance is a form of compensation, and the employer should have no expectation of controlling what the employee does with any compensation, be it wages, vacation, retirement or health insurance. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/38 "2012-11-13T17:37:25Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Health insurance is a benefit negotiated with the employee when they are first hired, along with salary, vacation, retirement and other benefits. Health insurance is a form of compensation, and the employer should have no expectation of controlling what the employee does with any compensation, be it wages, vacation, retirement or health insurance. The price paid by the employee may be up for negotiation but not the specifics of the policies offered (in most instances). Also, a benefit implies that that the employer can refuse to offer insurance which is no longer the case under the health care reform. Yes, technically they can refuse to offer a policy and pay the fines but that is a far cry from a “benefit”. Employers already DO control what employees do with insurance “compensation”. Many employers offer shitty plans with high deductibles only in order to control costs. Some employers offer vision and dental while others do not. An employer who does not offer vision is not controlling the employees’ access to an optometrist. They are simply refusing to offer a policy that pays for it. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/39 "2012-11-13T17:39:56Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The price paid by the employee may be up for negotiation but not the specifics of the policies offered (in most instances). Also, a benefit implies that that the employer can refuse to offer insurance which is no longer the case under the health care reform. Yes, technically they can refuse to offer a policy and pay the fines but that is a far cry from a “benefit”. > > Employers already DO control what employees do with insurance “compensation”. Many employers offer shitty plans with high deductibles only in order to control costs. Some employers offer vision and dental while others do not. An employer who does not offer vision is not controlling the employees’ access to an optometrist. They are simply refusing to offer a policy that pays for it. But now, all policies have a minimum level of quality. That minimum level includes birth control. Allowing random religious people to ignore that minimum level is like saying a sandwich shop can ignore health regulations because the owner doesn’t believe in the germ-theory of disease. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/40 "2012-11-13T17:45:36Z")
> [@SouthernGuy](#): > > It seems to me here that the Obama Administration is violating the first amendment by forcing Christian business owners to provide a medical benefit to employees that go against their faith(such as contraceptives) or face paying a hefty fine per day. All this leaves them with is the choice to violate their own religious beliefs to keep profiting or being fined into Oblivion. I’m an Atheist and this does not sit right with me as far as rights go. Should an apartment complex be required to rent to mixed-race couples if the owner sincerely believes that miscegenation is a sin? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878.md?page=3)