Are they running a business or running a religion?
If they are running a business, they have to go by the rules that apply to businesses.
If they are running a religion, they can go by the rules that apply to businesses.
But a person selling bibles is primarily selling a product, not engaging in religion, so they have to play by the rules that apply to businesses.
I’m not sure what the fuss is, either. Near as I can tell, they’re upset because they’ve been told they should be upset, and because they wanted something to complain about.
I don’t see any discriminiation if the company does not pay for contraception for men or women. The government also refuses to let individuals use food stamps for certain food items like hot food or fast food. I’m not sure how being a government entity changes the equation. The government does not want its money being spent on lavish items or booze but food stamp recipients are free to purchase booze and lobster with their own money.
Let me state that I am not catholic. I have no problem with contraception. That being said I don’t think it is right to force an entity to subsidize something they believe is a mortal sin. Prescription drug plans differ in what they cover. Many drugs are not covered at all under certain plans (as I’m sure we are all painfully aware after trying to fill a prescription that is not covered). What is the difference here? Women are free to spend the 9 bucks a month at Target for their pills if they choose. Big Religion is not forcing them to have unprotected sex or abstain from sex for that matter.
Perhaps you are right. Does anyone have a good cite on this. EverwonderWhy stated that 28 states require religious institutions that serve and hire people of other faiths to include birth control in their drug plans. Are these institutions required to provide drug plans currently? I have a hard time believing that these institutions are upset about being forced to do something that they are already doing.
Contraception for men has no therapeutic benefit. A significant minority of women who use hormonal birth control have it prescribed to control medical issues beyond fertility, such as ovarian disorders or endometriosis.
That’s not the point, though. The apartment complex forced to rent to a mixed couple is being forced to enable a practice they believe is a mortal sin.
In no case I know of does the employer have to provide a service or function that is contrary to their beliefs. Paying for (I originally wrote ‘providing’ - but very few companies PROVIDE insurance directly) insurance coverage that covers all valid medical procedures is NOT the same thing.
Put simply, working in a kosher meat packing plant doesn’t stop you from spending some of your wages on a bacon cheeseburger for lunch, nor is it any of the employer’s concern, nor are they being forced to go against their religious tenets by graciously allowing you to walk across the street to eat such a monstrosity.
We force plenty of entities to subsidize something they believe is a mortal sin. If a business owner is a pacifist, we don’t let them off the hook for paying taxes to support the military, for example. And how about the Christian Scientist and Jehovah’s Witness business owners frequently mentioned above, who are forced to pay for insurance covering sinful (in their eyes) things like blood transfusions and appendectomies?
It’s kind of telling that women’s reproductive health is being spun as some kind of special case where the employers’ religious principles are more important than the health of the employee. People think of contraception as a sexual-morality issue rather than as a public-health issue, with the consequence that they don’t take it seriously as part of employers’ obligations under the health insurance mandate.
Saying “oh, but contraception only costs a few bucks a month” or “nobody’s forcing anyone not to use contraception” is evading the point with sloppy reasoning. If insurance coverage requirements for things like flu shots and blood tests are not subject to employers’ individual religious preferences, then that applies to contraception too.
Eeee-yeah. I knew a LOT of 19-20 year old Catholic women who had to go on the pill to stabilize their irregular cycle or control incipient endometriosis. Such things must be genetic in Catholic families.
As it was for their mothers, who all had to have hysterectomies at 40 because of polyps.
So what? The church is not able to prevent someone from using birth control. Contrast that with an apartment complex that refuses to rent to a mixed couple.
But ARE those things forced upon any religious institution currently. It’s my understanding that companies do not have to provide insurance at all (for the time being). That is a huge loophole. If Jehovah’s Witness employer doesn’t want his or her money being used to support blood transfusions then they can simply not provide insurance. Alternatively, I think companies can negotiate what kind of policy they offer with insurance companies. I don’t know if it is possible to exclude a certain procedure (not legally but practically). Many companies offer only catastrophic insurance which would not cover annual checkups, etc. My point is that currently there are options if employers want to opt out of paying for a policy that conflicts with their beliefs…up to and including not offering insurance. This will not be the case one the HCR takes full effect.
So what? The apartment complex is not able to prevent a mixed-race couple from living somewhere else.
Your attempts to differentiate these two types of situations, like your refusals to compare forcing religious employers to pay for insurance including contraception with forcing religious employers to pay for insurance including flu shot, are flawed. The law does routinely force businesses to comply with policies that are against the business owners’ religious beliefs. Requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives is just being consistent with that.
Yes.
Not on the national level, prior to the current health insurance mandate, but as previously noted, many states have required it. And as previously noted, many religious employers have disliked complying with it (just as many religious landlords have disliked being forced to rent apartments to interracial couples), but they’ve had to put up with it. And the national panties have remained largely untwisted, until now.
The analogy is flawed. An apartment complex cannot exclude mixed race couples but they don’t have to subsidize their rent. Same with birth control…the church cannot stop its employees from using it but they don’t want to have to subsidize it.
They don’t subsidize it. It is subsidized by the insurance company.
If that is indeed the case then I still don’t get why the big fuss over this new mandate. But, if the church put up a fuss at the state level they are at least being consistent.
I think we all know that’s BS. The cost has to be passed on to the businesses somehow. Sure, there might not be a line that states that a company has to pay X for contraception but you know the costs are being passed along.
I don’t.
That is the thing though; offering birth control is net cost savings for insurance companies, that’s why they haven’t objected to picking up the tab. Fewer pregnancies is cheaper than providing monthly pills.
And we’re back to the tenuousness of these “costs being passed on”. If the employee buys contraception, he/she is using the money they received from the employer, thereby “passing on the costs” of that contraception to the employer also.
At some point, there is a break in the chain, a place where the employer rationalizes that they are no longer responsible for how the money they give is used. I don’t see a major difference between giving an employee money that will be used to pay for contraception, and giving money to an insurance company that may be used for contraception. The difference, to me, is simply a matter of political disagreement and not a principled moral tand.
I don’t know that, but I do know that this is an attempt at dodging an inconvenient fact. 