I don’t see the parallel here. Refusing to cover contraception in an insurance policy does not mean that the employee is prohibited from purchasing contraception. A better example may be the government refusing to allow the purchase of alcohol with food stamps. You can still drink all you want but not on the government’s dime.
I was not comparing the two. I was stating that I believe that everyone SHOULD have access to the same benefits regardless of employer, but this particular case is a grey area. The problem isn’t that they simply don’t want to pay for it, but that paying for it advocates the use of it which is a sin to their religion. Again, in my eyes it is not that they are denying the employee the benefit because it’s against their religion. Rather that by paying for it themselves is enabling and advocating the use of it which shouldn’t be forced upon the employer.
That’s not a better example. In both the actual controversy and the one I suggest, a private enterprise is required to perform an act contrary to its religious beliefs.
Yours appears to have no parallel at all to the issue under discussion.
That’s not the term I’d use. If you believe everyone should have access to the same benefits, I don’t see why it matters that in this case the employer just doesn’t want to pay for it.
Including something in a health insurance policy is not advocating its use, nor is it advocating for sinful behavior because a lot of women don’t even use birth control pills for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy. And religious institutions aren’t even paying for it, the health insurers are. Maybe the government will extend that policy to employers who object to providing this coverage on religious grounds as they did with religious organizations, or maybe they’ll tell them to go fuck themselves. I think I am fine with either one.
Yes, because to do otherwise would be a discrimination of the interracial couple. The apartment complex owner is in no way advocating interacial couples by allowin them to stay. Completely different from being forced by law to pay for something against your religion enabling and advocating the use of it. Women are not being discriminated against. In fact it seems vice versa.
The apartment complex owner obviously feels differently. That’s why he won’t give them an apartment. He doesn’t want to do business with them because he disapproves of them.
They’re not advocating anything. That’s the wrong word, so please stop using it. “Enabling” is at least technically correct.
This is ridiculous. There are many health reasons why contraceptives might be necessary for a particular individual to use.
Our elected leaders have decided that certain medical procedures/items must be made available in order to achieve a certain base level of healthcare that benefits society. I agree with them that contraceptives should be part of that base level of care, if only because there are so many god damned unwanted babies out there, nevermind that there are probably other health reasons why someone might need this type of coverage.
Do you have a reason why you don’t think this particular care should not be part of the base level of coverage? I’m willing to listen to RATIONAL reasons why it shouldn’t be included. Everyone should.
Purely religious reasons, however, should be dismissed off-handedly, IMHO.
The base minimum of health regulations for a restaurant is an excellent example fo this.
There might be completely logical, reasonable objections to certain rules about how restaurants should go about their business while keeping their clientele and staff safe. But “Because my god says a little dirt in the burger meat is best” is NOT a good reason.
Unless you take the position that chemical contraception isn’t a medical procedure (or a medically therapeutic drug, if you prefer), it certainly is discrimination. There’s no other medical care they object to providing.
[QUOTE=EverwonderWhy]
Legal precedence may suggest otherwise…
[/QUOTE]
Although I agree with the court’s conclusion, that’s one federal district. The decision isn’t binding on anyone except the parties in that case. It’s fair to say this remains a completely open question from a legal perspective, though I think the challenge obviously fails under Employment Division v. Smith.
Neither does your example. Your example would only be relevant if an employer could somehow disallow the use of contraceptives for its employees. That doesn’t even resemble the controversy at hand.
My example is very similar to the controversy under discussion. In both instances an entity refuses to purchase something they deem inappropriate but the individual, in both instances, is free to make the purchase with their own money.
What is inappropriate about health insurance? Surely medical decisions between a person and their doctor shouldn’t be left up to the employer. For decades, health insurance for church related companies has covered things like abortions, contraception, and other “sins” and there wasn’t a whole lot of complaining about violations of the first amendment about those.
No argument there! I’m not aware of any medical decisions that are left up to the employer. Are you?
For those companies that included those types of coverage this is a non-issue. We are concentrating on the companies that currently do not offer that type of coverage.
If an employer includes prescription drug coverage in their employee health plans they do not get to pick and choose how an employee uses that benefit. The prescription drug benefit is already included in the premium, employers are not paying for prescriptions every time an employee fills their script, contrary to the Rush Limbaugh interpretation.
As for theconscience clause, as supported in the cases brought to the California and New York Supreme Court (that mirrors the language of the HHS mandate):
As for private employers, under existing gender discrimination laws (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOC),
So, according to your post the church and all employers are already covering contraceptives and abortions. So what is all the fuss about? This is just status quo ante.
In 28 states, private employers that include prescription drug benefits and outpatient health services can not exclude contraceptives from coverage, as a gender equity issue.
Religious exemptions are provided for organizations that operate primarily in faith based capacities and only employ people of that faith (e.g. Churches)
Religious affiliated institutions that do not primarily operate in faith based capacities (e.g. Hospitals and Universities) and employ and serve people of all faiths are not exempt.
As far as abortions, I am unclear, I believe they are typically covered for health reasons, but I am not sure of any legal precedence that requires abortions covered by churches or religious affiliated institutions.
Then I’m not sure what the big fuss is over this mandate. Unless religious affiliated institutions choose not to have a prescription drug benefit as a way to circumvent the requirement. I’m just guessing here but the churches are upset for some reason.
I do not believe in a higher power so I do not have the silly answer you are seeking. I’m more or less playing the role of the Devil’s Advocate. I think a hell of alot more people WOULD use contraceptives. I was sitting on the fence as this issue affects me zero. I’m not a employer and I’m a Atheist. I try and look at issues through eyes off both sides of the line and this still was a grey area for me. I posted this thread to get opinions on this and now I find myself leaning towards the law’s side.
No discrimination occurs where the government refuses to buy someone alcohol. More importantly, the government is not a private entity, which completely changes the equation.