Just out of interest, why would anybody need to claim on their insurance for contraception ?

Anyway, Neal has pretty much nailed this thread. It isn't an issue because abortions are not mandated and Catholics ought to expect Catholic employees to follow their own moral guidelines in the firstplace. It says a lot about Catholic morality if the church has such little faith in their own adherents.

This thread is really yet another example of Brad's hypothetical discussions on 'freedom'. I find it interesting that, even though he isn't actually an employer, he seems mostly concerned with employers rights. Some of these threads can raise interesting points but ultimately they lead nowhere because Brad believes that as an employer he should have the 'freedom' to force me to do whatever I let him get away with and everybody else accepts that for the sake of a smoother running civil society the state should set and enforce basic minimum of standards of behaviour to even out unequal power relationships and provide basic protection for the vulnerable.

Wow Sass,
Should I only worry about things that affect me directly? How about the people that are foreign nationals. Should they only worry about things that affect themselves? I am sure you really don't believe that.
Should we worry about the others that are affected that are in our nation? Should only the poor worry about their tax rate? Certainly not. Don't be ridiculous.

My "hypothetical" discussions on freedom are anything but that. I want the Government to do what it is mandated constitutionally to do, and NOTHING ELSE. Until then I will state opinions based upon my perception of the Constitution. I am not perfect, but I feel it is not the purpose of the Government to legislate morality. Why do you and others think it is the responsibility of the government to legislate people's right to choose a birth control method, but not the employer's right to not have their insurance policy have to cover it. The people have the ability and freedom to get the service. Does the employer have the right to not provide these services?

If there are so many entities who are given a waiver from the Health Care laws signed by Obama (e.g. Unions, AARP, Politicians, et. al.), why cannot the Catholic Church get a waiver as well? Could that be discrimination as well?

b

Why do you and others think it is the responsibility of the government to legislate people's right to choose a birth control method, but not the employer's right to not have their insurance policy have to cover it. The people have the ability and freedom to get the service. Does the employer have the right to not provide these services?

The government is setting rquirements for what is included in health insurance offerings. Since it is at the employer level that most insurance is provided, what the govenrment is doing is protecting the rights of citizens to expect a minimal standard of insurance when they are employed. Without protections, an employer could revise their health care offerings, and provide inexpensive but minimal standards without fully informing their employees. As well, if they felt that the employment market was so tight that the employees couldn't move, might make this kind of move to increase profits with the knowledge that few employees would be lost. (Again an interesting point that universal coverage eliminates this form of employer control over individuals, and frees the employer from both the expense and the headaches that come with having to provide the benefits.)

If you are concerned with the Constitution surely one part of it that is important is "equal access" under the law. Where employers can, by fiat, change the composition of their health beneifts package - and make some employees either pay for health provisions covered in standard offerings, or seek additional coverage ouside their employers offering .... they are not getting equal access.

I

am not perfect, but I feel it is not the purpose of the Government to legislate morality.

No. But it is the governments purpose, under the Constitution, to ensure that all citizens have equal access to their rights under law. When women are treated differently becasue an employer has decided to make a moral choice, on their behalf....they are being denied equal access. Yes, they can pay for the services on their own or seek additional coverage ...but in this way they are being treated unequally.
Surely the moral choices should be left up to the person. Not the govenrment OR the employer. In the case of the government they are not making a moral choice. They are simply ensuring that the private citizen has equal access and it is up to the individual whether they make the individual moral choice to make use of that access.
In the case of the Employer, they are denying that choice or making it more difficult. They are intervening, to the extent they can, in the individual moral choice of the employee.

You are not siding with individual liberty here B. You are actually siding with those who would impose control over a womans ability to make a private decision that affects her health. .

The Catholic Church, wanting to have the law so that they can impose their morality on people (Catholics or not)? That seems out of character considering Papal actions over the past several hundred years...

What the cardinals see in secular government is not immorality, it's competition. They had a long time getting to tell people how to live their lives, and it's hard for them to let go. Understandable, I guess.

Democracy Now! had an excellent in-depth/broad discussion on this same matter today.

Discusses the letter that was read throughout Catholic masses, which I guess was a bit unprecedented, and included a call to civil disobedience.

bbauska wrote: My "hypothetical" discussions on freedom are anything but that.

If your initial premise is a Straw Man, how is it anything but hypothetical?

I want the Government to do what it is mandated constitutionally to do, and NOTHING ELSE. Until then I will state opinions based upon my perception of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is a bit vague in some areas, particularly when you look at Amendments #9 and #10. Luckily, there are experts who spend a long time looking at precedent and intent and case law. 9 of them get to make the decisions about what is Constitutional.

I am not perfect, but I feel it is not the purpose of the Government to legislate morality.

Hmmm. Looks to me like the Catholic Church want the government to legislate morality. Anti-abortion campaigns are all about changing the law so as to impose the morality of the proponents upon everyone else. The reverse is less true - legalised abortion does not force people to do it. Coverage of contraception in insurance does not force people to claim it.

Why do you and others think it is the responsibility of the government to legislate people's right to choose a birth control method, but not the employer's right to not have their insurance policy have to cover it. The people have the ability and freedom to get the service. Does the employer have the right to not provide these services?

If by doing so they impede the ability of people to obtain those services (either by making it more expensive, or just more difficult to access), then they are not just 'not providing' a service. They are treating people unequally.

The law is allowing people to have a choice, which is not 'morality'. It leaves the individual with the moral choice on whether to take the option or not. Restricting that choice based on moral objections would indeed be imposing moral standards. Which you would not like the government to do, I expect. So why is it ok for employers?

If there are so many entities who are given a waiver from the Health Care laws signed by Obama (e.g. Unions, AARP, Politicians, et. al.), why cannot the Catholic Church get a waiver as well? Could that be discrimination as well?

I think it depends what the waivers they have are for and the reasons for them. Personally I think all waivers in the healthcare bill are counterproductive and weaken the intent. So adding more is not helping.

What is this "Equal Access" that is brought up here? Please show me ONE case of a person not being allowed to have birth control services due to the Catholic Church prohibiting it via their insurance. I quote from above...

Walgreens has condoms.
Planned Parent Hood has Condoms, abortions and sterilizations.
Doctors can provide birth control services.

Where has access been denied to any person?

What other "Equal Access" items are needed by those who do not have what others have?
Does everyone get access to a 150K/year job? Maybe a 1.3 million/year?
Does everyone get a new car every year?
Does everyone get a 5BR house in the burbs?
Does everyone get everything just because some get it?

Access means that someone is not prohibited from receiving the service. A good example is business serving a male patron, but not a female patron. That is unequal access, and is discrimination. No rights have been abridged. Are you saying that women cannot go to PP or their doctor and get the services they want? I don't think so.

Everyone has access. That is what Roe v Wade allows.

To answer Danivon's latest post, the government is there to ensure all are being treated equally. Show me where the Catholic Church is treating any employee any differently that any other employee. I am sure that the 9 you speak of will cover this issue soon enough.

****SIDEBAR****
If a church does not want to provide marriage services for a couple because of moral issues, are they going to be required to marry the couple just to provide the appearance of "Equal access". Just because some can get married in a church, do all have to get married in a church?

Show me where the Catholic Church is treating any employee any differently that any other employee.

Women who want contraception have to, differently then any other employee in the Catholic company with a health service requirement, buy insurance seperately if they want contraception covered.
Or, they have to pay out of pocket for a service that, if it were not for the Catholic Churches involvment, would be covered. (As part of a standard offer in any other company or organization).
Thats very different treatment.

The Catholic Churches involvement in these private moral choices doesn't impact men in any way.So women are treated differently from men within the organization.

Women have to buy contraception differently than who in the company? Men do not have to pay for contraception/birth services?

You have failed to show that women are treated differently than others in this company. Perhaps you are thinking that women are treated differently in the Catholic church companies than other companies? That is not discrimination as the Catholic Church companies are treating all equally.

As for men not being impacted by the decision, that is sexist at the core. Men have a desire for their wives to be treated if they so choose. Perhaps you don't think men care about their wives?

So, Brad, what if the employee works for a Seventh Day Adventist religious organization? And let's say they are a hemophiliac and need blood transfusions on a regular basis? And the religious organization says to the employee you cannot get coverage for those transfusions because we do not believe in them It seems to me your argument is simply that it does not cost that much for contraception. If it did cost that much for contraception then there could be denial of access because of a lack of ability to pay.

Obviously, you think the federal government is wrong on forcing religious organizations to provide insurance coverage for activities that are against their religion. The counter-argument is that to the extent that they are entering the public arena and engaging the public they must abide by general rules that require them to pay for contraception. Do you argue that a religious hospital is not entering into the public arena such that they should not be subject to these requirements? Maybe your argument is simply that the benefits we get from Catholic hospitals outweigh the marginal costs we are putting on employees who must get their contraception elsewhere. Would you agree that a Seventh Day Adventist organization could not exclude blood transfusions from coverage? What is the principle that you are invoking that we could apply to allow any religious hospital to deny coverage to their employees (or treatment to a patient) based on their religious beliefs?

I am interested in your response. If the principle you are using only applies to certain situatioins and not to others, then you probably need to come up with a different principle to oppose these restrictions on religious organizations.

Also it seems like under your analysis that if the Catholic Church paid all of its employees less than minimum wage then that would be ok because they would not be discriminating. You see a contradiction there?

b

Perhaps you are thinking that women are treated differently in the Catholic church companies than other companies?

Why yes I am.

That is not discrimination as the Catholic Church companies are treating all equally

So Catholic Church run companies get to treat American women differently than they are treated in other American companies, and thats not discrimination?
You have a funny idea about what the rights of a citizen are.... Do you really think these rights, including the right to equal treatment under the law, change, depending on what company employs them?

freeman2 wrote:I think Ricky's post was brilliant. You want to operate a hospital, you need to follow the rules and regulations that everyone else follows. You want to operate a private school, I would say you should be forced to teach evolution.

Leaving these boards is the best decision I've made. I absolutely don't miss stuff like this.

Freeman, I think you're a very smart guy. However, as a lawyer, you're supposed to value the Constitution. I don't expect you to agree with me on religion, but the idea that a religious school should be forced to teach evolution, a religious hospital should be forced to perform procedures (abortion?) that violate its faith ought to scare you. If Congress or the President can abridge the right to practice religion, what restrictions are there?

What you have written points to an abolition of freedom. I know you don't see it and that's the problem.

There is something of a similiarity in this and the civil rights movement. The 1964? Civil Rights bill prohibited "public accomodations" from discriminating on the basis of race. I am not implying that the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion is on a par with racial discrimination, but simply noting that once you enter into the public arena you subject yourself to regulations that might conflict with your beliefs.

So the interest of the government supersedes the interest of the religion or individual? That is a very slippery slope you are on. I wish you well upon it.

In this instance, the remedy the Catholic Church has is to use the political process to get an exemption, since clearly we are not talking about an infringement on religious freedom.

Clearly? Not even EJ Dionne, who is slightly less conservative than our President (ahem) agrees with you. You are out on a limb and actively sawing.

See you all around.

danivon wrote:[And as long as the employees don't lose out financially (say if the employers give them a comensurate raise, and they are able to form a group plan), that would be an acceptable compromise all around, right?

Oh there will be not other compensations such as commensurate raise. It will be a hit to the take home pay of all employees.

bbauska wrote:What is this "Equal Access" that is brought up here? Please show me ONE case of a person not being allowed to have birth control services due to the Catholic Church prohibiting it via their insurance. I quote from above...

Walgreens has condoms.
Planned Parent Hood has Condoms, abortions and sterilizations.
Doctors can provide birth control services.

Where has access been denied to any person?

Condoms, abortions and sterilisations are not the only forms of contraception. Not all are covered under insurance - indeed,your last varies in terms of whether they are covered by insurance.

What other "Equal Access" items are needed by those who do not have what others have?

Standard Health insurance coverage would be a good start. Quit with the straw men.

Access means that someone is not prohibited from receiving the service. A good example is business serving a male patron, but not a female patron. That is unequal access, and is discrimination. No rights have been abridged. Are you saying that women cannot go to PP or their doctor and get the services they want? I don't think so.

Access is also related to cost. For health services that's quite important.

Everyone has access. That is what Roe v Wade allows.

Even if some states set it so that no clinics effectively exist within them? Access is more than it just being legal.

To answer Danivon's latest post, the government is there to ensure all are being treated equally. Show me where the Catholic Church is treating any employee any differently that any other employee. I am sure that the 9 you speak of will cover this issue soon enough.

What '9' do I speak of? You are confusing me a bit here... More than usually, that is.

The Catholic Church want to treat their employees differently to how other employers are having to under the law.

They want to impose their morality upon their employees through the medium of employee benefits. They want to control what their employees can be insured for.

As someone pointed out, the Christian Scientists have a huge range of medical hangups on 'religious' grounds. Scientologists would object to psychiatry. The Mennonite Amish may want to preclude certain technologies. Where does it end?

****SIDEBAR****

Just headline it "***** YET ANOTHER STRAW MAN HYPOTHETICAL****, and we'll know to ignore it...