RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate

RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 7:18:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I find myself thinking it's a bit, well, creepy for an all-male, all-unmarried elite to be so hellbent on controlling other people's reproductive lives. To be fair, fighting against the HHS mandate isn't about trying to control reproductive lives. It's about not wanting to pay for it. Except that no organization paid for by those Bishops would fall under the mandate. Catholic hospitals and other businesses support the Church but do not receive money from it.

DomKen -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 7:26:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr If there's a Glatt Kosher deli that actually hires a non-Jew (Because of working with food, they're allowed to exclude non-Jews from employment, I think), should the deli be forced - by *law* to provide ham sandwiches every Wed. for those employees that want them? Of course not! Jewish people think eating pork is a sin. Why can't we respect their wishes? When I go to a Jewish person's house, I eat off a paper plate and plastic utensils. I do so without complaint. Let's make that more in line with what's happening. If there is some Jehovah's Witness business that employs non JW and it provides health insurance should that health insurance be able to refuse to pay for any blood transfusion or blood product based treatment?

kalikshama -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 8:25:51 AM)
quote: The United States rate of unintended pregnancies is higher than the world average, and much higher than that in other industrialized nations. Almost half (49%) of U.S. pregnancies are unintended, more than 3 million unintended pregnancies per year. While looking into why this might be, I found some interesting slices when I drilled down. Why is marriage a deterrent to unwanted pregnancy and poverty positively correlated? I wonder about the demographics of women using the Pill vs condoms (15% typical use failure rate.) http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3002498.html ...Among married women, 31% of pregnancies were unintended, compared with 63% among formerly married women and 78% among never-married women. ...Women's poverty status (defined as the ratio of family income to the federal definition of poverty)*‡ was strongly associated with the unintended pregnancy rate but only weakly associated with the rate of intended pregnancy. Among women in poverty, pregnancies were more likely than among higher income women to be unintended and to end in unplanned births, and were slightly more likely to end in abortions. The overall pregnancy rate declined with increasing income, and this trend resulted mainly from the higher rate of unintended pregnancy among poor women. The proportion of poor women's unintended pregnancies that ended in abortion was similar to the proportion among women living at 100-199% of the poverty level, and was less than that among women whose income was 200% or more of the poverty level.

searching4mysir -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 8:37:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr If there's a Glatt Kosher deli that actually hires a non-Jew (Because of working with food, they're allowed to exclude non-Jews from employment, I think), should the deli be forced - by *law* to provide ham sandwiches every Wed. for those employees that want them? Of course not! Jewish people think eating pork is a sin. Why can't we respect their wishes? When I go to a Jewish person's house, I eat off a paper plate and plastic utensils. I do so without complaint. Let's make that more in line with what's happening. If there is some Jehovah's Witness business that employs non JW and it provides health insurance should that health insurance be able to refuse to pay for any blood transfusion or blood product based treatment? I believe so, yes. As a potential employee, I would have the choice of whether or not to work there, whether or not to add a rider to the policy offered by the company that covered blood transfusions/blood products (and anything else that I deemed important enough to cover that the existing policy did not), or the option to not choose the company provided benefits and purchase health insurance elsewhere. The employee always has other options. They may not LIKE those options, but they do exist.

searching4mysir -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 8:39:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I find myself thinking it's a bit, well, creepy for an all-male, all-unmarried elite to be so hellbent on controlling other people's reproductive lives. To be fair, fighting against the HHS mandate isn't about trying to control reproductive lives. It's about not wanting to pay for it. Except that no organization paid for by those Bishops would fall under the mandate. Catholic hospitals and other businesses support the Church but do not receive money from it. So what if they don't receive money from the Church? They self-identify as Catholic. That should be enough.

DomKen -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 9:06:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I find myself thinking it's a bit, well, creepy for an all-male, all-unmarried elite to be so hellbent on controlling other people's reproductive lives. To be fair, fighting against the HHS mandate isn't about trying to control reproductive lives. It's about not wanting to pay for it. Except that no organization paid for by those Bishops would fall under the mandate. Catholic hospitals and other businesses support the Church but do not receive money from it. So what if they don't receive money from the Church? They self-identify as Catholic. That should be enough. The argument was that the bishops were protesting because they would have to under this new rule. Maybe you should read posts more carefully in the future.

Raiikun -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 9:13:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I find myself thinking it's a bit, well, creepy for an all-male, all-unmarried elite to be so hellbent on controlling other people's reproductive lives. To be fair, fighting against the HHS mandate isn't about trying to control reproductive lives. It's about not wanting to pay for it. Except that no organization paid for by those Bishops would fall under the mandate. Catholic hospitals and other businesses support the Church but do not receive money from it. So what if they don't receive money from the Church? They self-identify as Catholic. That should be enough. The argument was that the bishops were protesting because they would have to under this new rule. Maybe you should read posts more carefully in the future. The argument was that having a Catholic entity not paying for it is not the same as "trying to control the reproductive lives of others".

DarkSteven -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 9:14:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Because they don't want to pay for something against their religious beliefs. This is not the same thing as trying to enforce it on people not of their religion. Not exactly. The issue is, can a religious management impose its religion on its workers? The workers are the ones who will pay, in terms of premiums, for the coverage. Management does not "pay" for it. The only ones who have a legitimate reason to complain are the workers who oppose contraception, on the grounds that they are paying for their coworkers' BC.

DomKen -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 9:22:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I find myself thinking it's a bit, well, creepy for an all-male, all-unmarried elite to be so hellbent on controlling other people's reproductive lives. To be fair, fighting against the HHS mandate isn't about trying to control reproductive lives. It's about not wanting to pay for it. Except that no organization paid for by those Bishops would fall under the mandate. Catholic hospitals and other businesses support the Church but do not receive money from it. So what if they don't receive money from the Church? They self-identify as Catholic. That should be enough. The argument was that the bishops were protesting because they would have to under this new rule. Maybe you should read posts more carefully in the future. The argument was that having a Catholic entity not paying for it is not the same as "trying to control the reproductive lives of others". No. The argument was about the all male, all unmarried elite claiming it violated their morals to be required to pay for others contraception. I simply pointed out that they don't and the mandate doesn't change that fact.

Raiikun -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 9:22:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Not exactly. The issue is, can a religious management impose its religion on its workers? That's not what's happening here. There's nothing in there about a ban on BC for the students for one thing. quote: The only ones who have a legitimate reason to complain are the workers who oppose contraception, on the grounds that they are paying for their coworkers' BC. I would think it would be a safe assumption that management would be included among those paying premiums for insurance.

xssve -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 9:36:03 AM)
Look, if you're getting federal funds, you have to comply with federal law, that's it, you don't want to comply with federal law? Don't accept federal funds. This is what you stepped into when when you decided faith based subsidies were a good idea, now you want to take the money but not have to comply with the law. The taxpayers are supporting you, so put a fuckin' cork in it.

Raiikun -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 9:49:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve Look, if you're getting federal funds, you have to comply with federal law, that's it, you don't want to comply with federal law? Don't accept federal funds. The debate is kinda about what federal law should be.

kalikshama -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 10:01:43 AM)
The title of the article is a bit moot since it will be the insurers shouldering the cost of contraception, not the religious employers, but: Should Catholic Employers Be Exempted From Paying For Health Insurance Covering Contraception? Essentially, when the Catholic Church employs or serves non-Catholics and performs non-religious functions, it needs to offer all the same rights and protections that non-religious institutions are required to provide. Some Catholics, including some left-leaning ones, are up in arms alleging that this is tantamount to a violation of their rights to free exercise of religion. ...On the other hand, secularists, such as I, argue that governmental rules like these protect the consciences (which includes the religious consciences) of employees and the public. If a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist takes employment to teach or practice medicine at a Catholic institution, this should not interfere with her ability to get access to the contraception she needs in order to regulate her reproductive life according to her own conscience. The rights of conscience of particular Catholics, and of the Catholic Church collectively to believe and worship as it wishes, should not extend to a right to encumber the free exercise of conscience of everyone who they employ for non-religious functions. This is intrusive and authoritarian. If the Roman Catholic Church wants its employees—even the non-Catholic ones—to honor its moral dictates then it should trust them to freely obey.

Moonhead -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 10:07:17 AM)
The simple answer to that one is "No, of course not." Anybody who thinks otherwise is making an argument for special privileges. WTF is there any debate about?

kalikshama -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 10:11:18 AM)
http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2012/01/why-does-the-catholic-church-enjoy-irs-protection/ ...The female individual having no lobbying crew or elite to protect her, for which she relies on the government, because only at the highest levels can a woman’s individual civil rights be secured. “Competing liberty interests” doesn’t address the lack of power an individual person has against institutions, seen in this debate by the Catholic Church who wants to deny reproductive health care to women, which hits rural and poor women directly. Contrary to the fantasy that the Obama administration waging “an attack on their religious freedom,” ... what Pres. Obama has decided gives power to the individual over institutions. Nothing is in higher keeping with the founders’ principles. It also is what Republicans and other conservatives, including Democrats, tout all the time, except where women are concerned. Then all of a sudden freedom it is just for men. One woman’s privacy is more important than any religious institution’s prerogatives. This highlights the biggest scourge in our politics and that is allowing religion and faith to have entrance into the debate in the first place. Thanks to Ronald Reagan and the “Moral Majority,” which was neither then or now, a religious litmus test has entered our political and policy landscape. ...

Raiikun -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 10:17:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama The rights of conscience of particular Catholics, and of the Catholic Church collectively to believe and worship as it wishes, should not extend to a right to encumber the free exercise of conscience of everyone who they employ for non-religious functions. I don't believe it does encumber the free exercise of conscience of anyone. Their right to obtain contraceptives would not be tread upon, nor their right to choose a provider that covers the contraceptives if they want it covered rather than paying the 15-50 dollars themselves.

Edwynn -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 10:40:01 AM)
It is one group trying to skirt the law by way of religious conviction in violation of the first amendment, nothing more. They want an exception to adhering to rules that apply to non-religion based enterprises. The fact that those who would be excluded from employer coverage for BC in this manner have other alternatives is not germane to the discussion at hand, merely a red herring. To allow this exception for some employers for religious reasons would be discrimination against all non-religion based enterprises at the federal level.

kalikshama -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 10:47:28 AM)
I suspect that most seeking an exemption do not meet these criteria: State Law Has Religious Exemption North Carolina is among at least 24 states with laws mandating that insurers that cover prescription drugs also cover any contraceptive approved by the Food and Drug Administration, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. While the state’s law does provide an exemption for religious organizations, it narrowly defines what constitutes a religious organization: * The entity must be organized and operated for religious purposes and be tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. * The inculcation of religious values is one of the primary purposes of the entity. * The entity employs primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/11/belmont#ixzz1pOhkoX5f Inside Higher Ed

Edwynn -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 10:59:43 AM)
I don't know about other religions, but as far as the Catholic Church goes that would mean only employees hired to maintain the church. The Catholic school doesn't comply with the conditions above because the inculcation of religious values is not the primary purpose (else it would not be certified as a school). Hospitals and universities are of course not within exemption.

Edwynn -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 11:20:09 AM)
I think the problem at Belmont Abbey is president Tierfelder. He came from the business world and was president of a company and is probably used to having things his way and orders followed with out question. In changing the policy to exclude coverage for BC where it had been covered before, without any directive fro the Archdioceses spoken of, the initiative appears to have been his own. But in one case from the story about Professor Neipert's claim of religious discrimination the EEOC ruling denying the claim was correct. His denial of tenure was due to retaliation, not because of his being non-Catholic. Otherwise the matter seems to be proceeding well for the remaining faculty. The few people I know who went to Belmont Abbey all have good things to say about the experience, and the campus is really nice.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875