Does the Federal Government have a right to mandate that Catholic based hospitals/charities provide services that are antithetical to it's beliefs? I would say not, but I am interested in others opinions. Should a Catholic hospital be required to provide:

Abortion?
Sterilization?
Contraception?

Seeing that these services can be received elsewhere for those who wish to access them, why does the Federal Government (via the HHS) choose this position?

Here's how I understand this issue:The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act defines a religious employer as having as its purpose to 1) cultivate religious values, 2) primarily employ people who share the organization's religious tenets and 3) primarily serve people who share its religious tenets.
So churches may be exempt from the requirements, but religious universities, hospitals and organizations are not. This poses a serious crisis of conscious for religious employers. If they follow the law and provide "preventative services" for free to their students, employees, or clients, they go against the very beliefs they and their organizations espouse.
If religious employers refuse to provide these services, they will be required to pay a hefty fine to the government, which could if repeatedly required by serial refusals, put their organizations out of business, thereby eliminating the services they offer.

The question is, should a religious organization be able to project their "beliefs" onto the society at large through their participation in areas out side the scope of the actual religious institution? Could for instance, a church that firmly holds against interracial marriage be allowed to turn away people in mixed race marriages if they attend their hospitals?

I believe that once a church (religion) has reached beyond its area of worship and theological learning and begins to conduct affairs in the secular world - they fall under the umbrella of law protecting all citizens. In this case, women's right to access reproductive choice that is allowed under law.
If a church member is uncomfortable under that law, they should refrain from providing their services in that field. Leave the field. That means their decision of conscience is personal, and affects only them. They have not the right to inflict their decisions of conscience on ordinary citizens who happen, by chance and circumstance, to encounter them in a time of need.

Nice talk rickyP. Didn't answer any questions, but nice talk just the same...

I did not speak at all about racial discrimination. The Catholic Church is not prohibiting any member of it's religion from getting abortion, contraception or sterilization. The Catholic Church is not wanting to pay for or provide those services. Are you saying a religious institution must provide services it does not believe in? Show me one instance where the Catholic Church kept a person from getting an abortion on their own free will. I guess that is what "choice" means. People have the "choice" to get services. People/institutions have a "choice" as to provide them.

Can it with the racial strawman. You are the only one who keeps bringing race into it.

b

The Catholic Church is not prohibiting any member of it's religion from getting abortion, contraception or sterilization.

The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.
And in states where abortion has been illegal under law, usually the Catholic Church has lead to the fight to keep it illegal. For everyone.

b

The Catholic Church is not wanting to pay for or provide those services. Are you saying a religious institution must provide services it does not believe in?

No.
It can get out of the business of providing health care and therefore avoid breaking the law and avoid paying for reproductive health services it eschews.
No one is forcing the Catholic Church to run hospitals. They choose to do so.... When they do so, they operate them undeer any number of laws, regulations and restrictions. Why should religion allow them to choose which laws, regulations and restrictions they are required to follow.?
If they can't comfortably operate under the laws, restrictions and regulations they can choose to vacate the business.

The "racial strawman| is not a strawman. It's an illustration of how, if you replace "religion" with another form of discrimination - you see how religion can export its discriminations.
Where a modern American society would no longer abide discrimination against races in the delivery of services.....it once was common.
Today, the Catholic Church discriminates against the right of women to freely choose in matters of their reproductive health. When they operate hospitals they export this discrimination. Apparently for some the veil of religion allows them the right to export this discrimination.

The problem ricky is that getting out of the provision of healthcare will mean they have to pay the fine. For example, Catholic schools will have to provide health insurance to their employees that violates the tenets of their religion.

So then your response is that the Church should get out of the field of providing an education? Well what about those parents that want to send their child to a school that teaches based on the tenets of catholicism. Or hell want an option to send their child to other then the failed intercity public school.

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. 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. 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.

No one ever linked up any evidence of Catholic hospitals being required to conduct abortions. So why are you debating it?

Neal Anderth wrote:No one ever linked up any evidence of Catholic hospitals being required to conduct abortions. So why are you debating it?

Because Brad proposed the straw man and then when others respond with analogies he accuses them of using straw men. Sorta like creating a mexican standoff of moral superiority.

i'd only heard of this in relation to insurance. Employers should not really be dictating what is not covered in insurance - if you are going to have a system of voluntary insurance for health, it should be up to individual what they want covered. Better yet, have a national standard.

I can understand that Catholic employers may not like their employees having an abortion. But it's none of their business as employers what people choose to do in their private lives.

So then your response is that the Church should get out of the field of providing an education?

If they can't reconcile following the law, with running a school - yes.
Once you allow one religious groups with specific tenants to flaunt laws they deem counter to their beliefs you open the door to any manner of religious exceptionalism.

Well what about those parents that want to send their child to a school that teaches based on the tenets of catholicism. Or hell want an option to send their child to other then the failed intercity public school.

They can go to church to learn about their religion. And Chemistry class to learn about chemistry. Other then the bizarre notion (the product of Hodge and Warfield's over active imaginations) that the Bible offers a literally true description of creation and accurate and true accounts of history (even where they contradict within the scriptures) - and therefore has, as claimed by fundamentalist adherrents to this notion, an equal place amongst true science and history - there's no validity to the claim that religion really has a place within school. How could a Catholic school teach the History of the Civil War different than a Jewish school? How could a Muslim school teach English composition much differently than a Protestant school? If parents really want and require their children to have specific religious training let them arrange it at another time.
(With the exception of comparative religion, teaching the origins, and evolution of religious belief systems of every manner and stripe. which I think should be compulsory at some point, in order to cultivate understand, respect and tolerance of people - if not of their beliefs. )

To Danivons point; with a one payer, national system of health care insurance , all citizens would enjoy similar coverage benefits without the encroachments on their personal freedom by those who would limit their choices. And this discussion would be entirely moot. An example of how a Socialized system" would free both the employee and the employer. The employee from incursions into their personal freedoms by employers. The Employer from the necessity of managing and paying for a health benefits package.

I am wondering why discrimination is allowed by some and not others. The Catholic Church does not want to give any of the services to anyone. They are not choosing to serve anyone here. Does anyone else see that?

Why does RickyP think it is ok for the society to have a "Socialized system" that would limit choices of religious people to enjoy the employer freedoms he speaks of? I don't get this. He wants choice, but provides the example of a system where an employer does NOT have the choice but to follow the Governments idea of religion.

Is it discrimination if the employer choose to not provide these services based upon their religious view? Where are they treating one person differently than anyone else? Your point that they treat their customers differently is wrong minded.

To me it is analogous to every convenience store being forced to sell cigarettes because they are legal to buy in America. Every vendor must provide them to the populace. Why does a vendor of religion have to provide similar services to the populace as the rest of society? As with a store, the populace has the choice of buying the cigarettes. As with religion, they need to choose as well. The Catholic Church is not treating one person differently. They are treating all of them the same. To me that is not discrimination. This sounds very similar to the Government's view of church. I think that ended up with the Church of England, and that caused the Puritans and other separatist groups from leaving.

To Danivons point; with a one payer, national system of health care insurance , all citizens would enjoy similar coverage benefits without the encroachments on their personal freedom by those who would limit their choices. And this discussion would be entirely moot. An example of how a Socialized system" would free both the employee and the employer. The employee from incursions into their personal freedoms by employers. The Employer from the necessity of managing and paying for a health benefits package.

I would think that the situation would be just as political. Should national health cover abortions? I'll defer to the constitutional scholars here, but perhaps it would become a legislative issue. I think it would be intensely political here in the US.

I'm not sure if everyone gets the ramifications of this change. For example, Catholic Charities has 70,000 employees who now must be covered for contraceptive and abortion services. This may have broad implications on the US elections over here since Catholics have a large population in the swing states. This will also impact Joe Biden's career, which is fine by me.

I don't really have strong view on this issue. I just want to explain the ramifications.

ray

I would think that the situation would be just as political. Should national health cover abortions? I'll defer to the constitutional scholars here, but perhaps it would become a legislative issue. I think it would be intensely political here in the US.

However it is decided to put contraception, or abortion into acceptable insurance expense.., the access would be equal for all...
The point behind the current ruling is that religious institutions running organizations that aren't religious in nature, currently have the ability to restrict access for their employees. Access to health beenfits is made unequal by the allowance of a "religious convictions waiver" (my term.
Part of that is the strange nature of US health insurance being based on employer provision...
It maks the employee dependent on their employer more than in single payer nations.

Sure ... but there may be intense debates over here on whether abortion should be covered. I could envision its coverage changing depending on which party is in power. That would be way huger than what it is now.

Does this issue come up in the UK or other socialized health care systems?

Why does RickyP think it is ok for the society to have a "Socialized system" that would limit choices of religious people to enjoy the employer freedoms he speaks of? I don't get this. He wants choice, but provides the example of a system where an employer does NOT have the choice but to follow the Governments idea of religion.

The freedom of the employee to choose what is done to his own body trumps the employer's 'freedom' to choose it for his employees.

Absolutely, Sass. Please show me where the Catholic Church has prohibited any employee from getting these services.

They do not want to have to pay for them. They are not discriminating one person over another based upon any protected class.