Video: Religious liberty in 16 seconds

posted at 2:51 pm on October 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Want to know how ridiculous the HHS contraception mandate is, especially on Catholic employes and particularly on religious organizations like Catholic hospitals, charities, and schools?  Via Kathryn Jean Lopez, the Archdiocese of St. Louis explains it in sixteen seconds:

Actually, this argument works beyond the issue of religious-organization exemption as well, as I’ve repeatedly argued.  Why should we force any employer to directly subsidize birth control?  What role does an employer have in the bedroom, anyway?  The intrusion on what should be a free-market choice makes even less sense when (a) the comprehensive long-term study by the Center for Disease Control shows access plays no significant part in unwanted pregnancies — indeed, it’s not even mentioned as an issue in its 20-year study — and (b) taxpayers already subsidize contraception for Medicaid recipients through Title X? This has always been a cure in search of a disease.

It’s bad enough on a policy level, but the imposition of this mandate on religious organizations is especially offensive — and insidious.  The HHS religious exemption only accounts for “places of worship” and organizations that solely consist of members of the same faith and service only the same community.  This represents an attempt by the Obama administration to regulate the definition of religious expression in order to curtail it.  This goes far beyond the issue of contraception — it’s an attack on a core principle of liberty itself.

Voters should remember that next Tuesday.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Religious liberty in 16 seconds.

Obamacare repeal in less than 16 weeks.

aunursa on October 30, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Just goes to show how “simple” liberals are. they don’t get it.

HomeoftheBrave on October 30, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Xcellent Ad

workingclass artist on October 30, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Who are the three ladies? I think I know the second and the third one from somewhere.

Gelsomina on October 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Still too difficult for most lefties to comprehend.

Bishop on October 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I used this exact same logic on my atheist buddy when we were discussing this issue, he didn’t think the HHS mandate was so bad until it was put into this light for him.

SWalker on October 30, 2012 at 3:01 PM

But… ladyparts!

robertlbryant on October 30, 2012 at 3:02 PM

The mandate is an affront to Liberty first and religious liberty second. The fact that the gov’t can extort one person to pay for another person’s life style and decisions should be an affront to all.

aniptofar on October 30, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I stand ready to subsidize contraception, abortions, and mass sterilization to a significant swath of Medicaid recipients. In fact, I believe that rigorously maintained ban on procreation should be automatic with signing up for Medicaid and/or welfare. The taxpayers’ charity should only go as far as to maintain the leeches, not to multiply them.

Archivarix on October 30, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Liberals typically don’t understand religious liberty – even liberals who claim to be religious tend to be ignoramuses about it.

22044 on October 30, 2012 at 3:03 PM

That’s an excellent ad, you can’t get much clearer than that.

Cindy Munford on October 30, 2012 at 3:04 PM

The Catholic vote will be the final nail for Obama in Ohio. They make up 25% of the population. Obama won the catholic vote by 13% in OH in 2008. Romney will win the Catholics that do vote by a higher % than that….and many more that voted for Obama in 2008 will stay home.

HumpBot Salvation on October 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Your health care plan allows you to choose a doctor. The doctor you’d like to choose is Jewish. Should your Muslim employer be able to deny your request to see this Jewish doctor?

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:09 PM

The HHS religious exemption only accounts for “places of worship” and organizations that solely consist of members of the same faith and service only the same community. This represents an attempt by the Obama administration to regulate the definition of religious expression in order to curtail it.

…unless it involves a praying rug!

KOOLAID2 on October 30, 2012 at 3:09 PM

It took liberals more then 16 seconds to vote against God in their DNC platform.

Electrongod on October 30, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Wow! Simple is so much more effective! Gotta Love It! That’s obviously why the cowards gave Muslims a waiver! i would love to hear the Messiah Tell muslims they have to pay for some woman’s contraception!
Addendum on the fight against the Obama Enemy media: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on October 30, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Ring, ring, ring…

Hello, Brady Campaign, the Constitution says I have a right to a gun, if you could send me a Smith and Wesson .357, that would be great.

AndrewsDad on October 30, 2012 at 3:12 PM

But I want free stuff.

forest on October 30, 2012 at 3:12 PM

It took liberals more then 16 seconds to vote against God in their DNC platform.

Electrongod on October 30, 2012 at 3:09 PM

They actually voted against God three times… before being told they had just voted for Him and the measure was approved.

Amazing that they do it to their own people too. What you want, your beliefs, your vote doesn’t matter to them at all!

UnderstandingisPower on October 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Father discussed this issue for his homily this past Sunday. During the homily, a lady got up and said “you shouldn’t be talking about this”, stormed out of the pew and gave Father the finger as she walked out the door.

tommer74 on October 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM

i would love to hear the Messiah Tell muslims they have to pay for some woman’s contraception!

paratisi on October 30, 2012 at 3:11 PM

If one thinks about this long enough it presents quite a conundrum.

Actually, if one thinks it thru even further, anyone no matter what faith, is already contributing to this… malfeasance…

Like it or not, one way or another some way some how… we all pay!

Romney had better by God, do away with Obamacare…

It is a shackle and we need to hurl it off…

Scrumpy on October 30, 2012 at 3:21 PM

An employer shouldn’t have to buy you anything. If it is so bad without employer-provided X,Y, or Z then quit.

Free Constitution on October 30, 2012 at 3:22 PM

This needs to get on TV.

kim roy on October 30, 2012 at 3:22 PM

This won’t move many liberals. To them, the argument is specious because contraception and abortion = healthcare and healthcare is a “right”.

Extrafishy on October 30, 2012 at 3:22 PM

tommer74 on October 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM

YIKES !!

pambi on October 30, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Romney had better by God, do away with Obamacare

It is a shackle and we need to hurl it off…

Scrumpy on October 30, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Oh he will. That name has got to be changed!

MassCare
ObamaRomneyCare

astonerii on October 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM

tommer74 on October 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM

:) God bless the good father.

Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

pannw on October 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Hey, when do you suppose that HotAir computer geek will be back from wherever he went to after modifying the site so that he can fix headlines and green room comments?

trapeze on October 30, 2012 at 3:25 PM

It took liberals more then 16 seconds to vote against God in their DNC platform.

Electrongod on October 30, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Yep, they denied God three times on September 5th. Six days later Dems denied those under attack at Benghazi any sort of assistance as if they had all the rights of a botched-abortion baby in Illinois. The party is reprehensible and repugnant.

Happy Nomad on October 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Obamaphone: you wouldn’t ask a Droid user to buy you an Iphone… Obamaphone!

patman77 on October 30, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Father discussed this issue for his homily this past Sunday. During the homily, a lady got up and said “you shouldn’t be talking about this”, stormed out of the pew and gave Father the finger as she walked out the door.

tommer74 on October 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Ah! Some of that liberal tolerance we hear about all the time. I bet this female (she is no lady) is constantly bleating about civil discourse too.

Happy Nomad on October 30, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I hope we are getting legal resources together because a lot of individuals are going to resist compliance with this law for religious and privacy reasons. Not that I agree with the decision but didn’t the Supreme Court decide that we have a guarantee to privacy in the Constitution? Then how does that square with this:
“It’s a gross violation of privacy. For the first time the government comes right into your house and into your most private, personal papers to collect and aggregate your most personal information, and that of everyone in your household. This information includes tax returns, employment, medical insurance, military service, Medicare and Medicaid and other medical benefits, and much more. And, this information is to be shared between agencies. HHS and the IRS will have access to your financial information, your employment, your medical records, your bank account, your tax returns, etc. Our 4th Amendment rights to be “secure in our persons, papers, houses, and effects,” and against “unreasonable search and seizure” are now meaningless phrases. This isn’t just unAmerican, it’s totalitarian.”

devan95 on October 30, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Your health care plan allows you to choose a doctor. The doctor you’d like to choose is Jewish. Should your Muslim employer be able to deny your request to see this Jewish doctor? segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Huh, so you make a Muslim the bigot of your analogy. Interesting. Usually Leftist moral imbeciles like you are on the Muslim’s side, helping to convey victim status etc.

Anyhow, everyone gets to choose a doctor, at least one that works with the plan he has. How would one’s employer even know an employee’s doctor’s religion? Your analogy is like an employer who follows someone around making sure he doesn’t buy kosher hot dogs with his salary.

Your issue is clear: You have no problem requiring me to pay for a new govt mandated benefit -for someone else- that contradicts my religion. That’s why you’re a Leftist. And a dope.

Akzed on October 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM

An employer shouldn’t have to buy you anything. If it is so bad without employer-provided X,Y, or Z then quit.

Free Constitution on October 30, 2012 at 3:22 PM

I think you are a tad too generic. Depending on the job and nature of employment, employers may well have to buy employees “stuff” be it equipment, tools, or some other item necessary to do the job. What the left has decided is that the government gets to decide what must be included in BENEFIT plans. It has decided that religious institutions must put the tenets of their faith aside in order to further a socialist agenda.

I would love to have some CAIR employee demand that bacon cheeseburgers be put on the menu at the employee cafeteria. Wonder how that would go down.

Happy Nomad on October 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Liberals understand religious liberty just fine. Their thing is to try to disallow certain religions they don’t like. They use every lie against them, while putting on blinders to key destructive tenets of the religions they favor.

Liam on October 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Keep letting more Muslims into the country, and in a couple generations we’ll be learning just how precious religious freedom really was.

KMC1 on October 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Should birth control in any form be considered a part of health insurance? What about reproductive health in general?

Should a Catholic organization be required to pay for health insurance that covers reproductive health for a divorced person?

Or equally as applicable, should a organization that is against smoking be required to give breaks for employees if they know that employee is smoking during that break?

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:36 PM

astonerii on October 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Posted you a comment :-)

Scrumpy on October 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Your health care plan allows you to choose a doctor. The doctor you’d like to choose is Jewish. Should your Muslim employer be able to deny your request to see this Jewish doctor? segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:09 PM

I wasn’t aware health care plans pointed out the Jews among the physicians. Or for that matter that your employer would know which provider you selected. But nice try in attempting to make a comparison between what is clearly an attack on the First Amendment and blatantly illegal discriminatory behavior.

Happy Nomad on October 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM

An employer shouldn’t have to buy you anything.

Free Constitution on October 30, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Exactly.

Your employer should pay you a salary. Full Stop.

With your salary, you should buy whatever you feel like. Full Stop.

ClintACK on October 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Anyhow, everyone gets to choose a doctor, at least one that works with the plan he has. How would one’s employer even know an employee’s doctor’s religion? Your analogy is like an employer who follows someone around making sure he doesn’t buy kosher hot dogs with his salary.

Your issue is clear: You have no problem requiring me to pay for a new govt mandated benefit -for someone else- that contradicts my religion. That’s why you’re a Leftist. And a dope.

Akzed on October 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM

You’re deflecting.

I’ll simplify. Should Muslim organizations be able require their employees to see Muslim doctors, or doctors of the same sex?

And yes, in both situations, your employer is dictating what you want and cannot do outside of work hours. It almost seems as though you think that’s kind of crazy…

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Or equally as applicable, should a organization that is against smoking be required to give breaks for employees if they know that employee is smoking during that break?

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:36 PM

If they give every employee a break, then yeah, they do have to allow that employee a break.

The question should really be, if they are against smoking, should they have to keep the employee on the payroll. Here I would argue that employer/employee relationships are supposed to be voluntary. Just like I say a church should not be forced to hire or keep on payroll someone who does not follow their religion.

astonerii on October 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Why, then, would you ask a Catholic employer to pay for your birth control?

Because Catholics have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, forward in history.

Alpha_Male on October 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Should birth control in any form be considered a part of health insurance? What about reproductive health in general?

Should a Catholic organization be required to pay for health insurance that covers reproductive health for a divorced person?

Or equally as applicable, should a organization that is against smoking be required to give breaks for employees if they know that employee is smoking during that break?

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:36 PM

That should be up to the insurer, not the government.

No. But what does marital status have to do with any of this?

No. And many companies are adopting a three strike policy on nicotine (as in three + tests and you’re fired) or arent’ hiring smokers at all. My uber liberal university just went tobacco free in July.

SoFlaCon on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I wasn’t aware health care plans pointed out the Jews among the physicians. Or for that matter that your employer would know which provider you selected. But nice try in attempting to make a comparison between what is clearly an attack on the First Amendment and blatantly illegal discriminatory behavior.

Happy Nomad on October 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM

You are arguing that they can’t, not that they shouldn’t.

Fine. Should a Catholic organization be able to restrict their employees from using their employer purchased health insurance at hospitals and locations that provide abortions?

Everyone is saying that this is an attack of religious liberty. I’m trying to figure out where the line between religious liberty and discrimination exists.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Muslim orgs can require whatever they want of their cult followers, who voluntarily work for them, as terms of their employment.

But govt cannot dictate what your employer must buy you. Pretty simple really.

Akzed on October 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Liberals understand religious liberty just fine. Their thing is to try to disallow certain religions they don’t like. They use every lie against them, while putting on blinders to key destructive tenets of the religions they favor.

Liam on October 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Exactly. I’m convinced they only care about one thing and that is the removal of conservatives. They really could care less about any cause and only take them up as weapons against conservatives. Someday conservatives will figure it out but not in my lifetime. They are pushing this whole BC thing because it hit a nerve with conservatives and that is the only reason they care about it.

Frank Enstine on October 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

The problem is that it’s logic. Logic means nothing to a liberal, therefore to the mainstream media who won’t ask the question.

Ask them why it’s OK to be pro-choice as long as you’re talking about murdering babies, but you can’t be pro-choice when you’re talking about buying a light bulb.

MikeinPRCA on October 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

The question should really be, if they are against smoking, should they have to keep the employee on the payroll. Here I would argue that employer/employee relationships are supposed to be voluntary. Just like I say a church should not be forced to hire or keep on payroll someone who does not follow their religion.

astonerii on October 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I completely, unequivocally respect that answer. I don’t think you can have it both ways. I don’t think employers should be able to discriminate “a little” Either employers can discriminate or they can’t.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I’m trying to figure out where the line between religious liberty and discrimination exists. segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

We can tell you don’t know.

Akzed on October 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM

That should be up to the insurer, not the government.
SoFlaCon on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

That can’t be up to the individual insurer though, right? I mean, if each individual insurer gets to define what health care is, than health care as a concept doesn’t really exist.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Yeah health care doesn’t exist, take this pill and die.
-Ezekiel Emmanuel

tom daschle concerned on October 30, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Muslim orgs can require whatever they want of their cult followers, who voluntarily work for them, as terms of their employment.

But govt cannot dictate what your employer must buy you. Pretty simple really.

Akzed on October 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

You really want to represent your side on this?

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM

seg – if they choose to define a narrow network of providers in their coverage and as a part of that bidding process they will not support hosptitals that do abortions – yes, they should be able to dictate that term.

With regards to the religious preference of the providers I think that might violate the CRA.

Zomcon JEM on October 30, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Because Catholics have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, forward in history.

Alpha_Male on October 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Is your hatred of Catholics based in reason or are you congenitally stupid?

Extrafishy on October 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM

That can’t be up to the individual insurer though, right? I mean, if each individual insurer gets to define what health care is, than health care as a concept doesn’t really exist.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM

It becomes a struggle between diamond encrusted solid platinum plans and bare bones barely covers you plans with prices to match.

I pay for all my health care that is not related to my service connected migraines out of my own pocket. No Insurance. There I am.

Another person may just want coverage against a catastrophic health event, such as cancer/aids/car accident/ other really costly event. They can do like I do and pay for the rest of their care out of their pockets.

Another person may just want to pay a huge sum every single month to have everything covered, from massage to that catastrophic event.

Just because we all choose our own solutions does not mean that healthcare is meaningless or not available. It means we decide.

The other side of the coin is having the government decide for us. How can they choose what works best for us if they are not us?

Right now, since I am uninsurable, so too is my 17 month old daughter. This is because of government interference. Not the free market. She has now what is effectively a payment helper. It reduces costs a little bit and promises to help pay for some events in her life. It is very limited, and it is the ONLY thing on the market for children only plans.

astonerii on October 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

That should be up to the insurer, not the government.
SoFlaCon on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

That can’t be up to the individual insurer though, right? I mean, if each individual insurer gets to define what health care is, than health care as a concept doesn’t really exist.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Why not? It’s ultimately their money and their risk, which is what insurance is at its face anyway. My plan covers things my friends’ plans don’t and vice versa. I’m confident if we were both diagnosed with strep we’d get the same course of treatment.

SoFlaCon on October 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Abortion is an easy one. Catholics hate it and never have them, and liberals love it and always have them. It’s easy to scream “religious liberty!”.

But does the concept hold for other more mundane things? If religious liberty excludes a group from following one law, doesn’t it have the power to exclude them from following all laws?

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM

If Obama wants to force Catholic employers to buy birth control, why doesn’t he require Jews in New York City or Muslims in Dearbornistan to buy ham sandwiches for school children?

Steve Z on October 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM

You really want to represent your side on this?
segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Well you don’t have much to say for your side. I’m speaking for myself, not any side.

Should employers be required by govt to provide employees with firearms? After all, they have a right to them.

Akzed on October 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Everyone is saying that this is an attack of religious liberty. I’m trying to figure out where the line between religious liberty and discrimination exists.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Three feet to your right.
An employer does not want to do business with a health insurer that provides services that they don’t want. How is that discrimination? An employee is free to seek additional services as they wish. My last employer did not offer dental insurance that paid in part for white fillings or crowns. If you wanted 50% of a filling for a front tooth to be covered it had to be a silver one. Not very attractive to say the least. Were they discriminating against people that want white fillings or crowns? How is not wanting to pay for BC any different? Should employers be mandated offer full and free dental coverage? What about cosmetic services?

Frank Enstine on October 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Everyone is saying that this is an attack of religious liberty. I’m trying to figure out where the line between religious liberty and discrimination exists.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Why should an employer be legally obligated to provide health insurance in the first place? I understand why the demands of the market make it important from a business standpoint in order to attract good employees, but why is it a legal obligation?

Answer that and we’ll move onto your other points.

PackerBronco on October 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM

That can’t be up to the individual insurer though, right? I mean, if each individual insurer gets to define what health care is, than health care as a concept doesn’t really exist.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM

This is what I love about some people. They cannot differentiate issues.

Discussing health insurance is discussing who pays for certain medicines, procedures, visits, etc. w/in the concept of “health care” – insurance does not define health care. things that one insurance plan does not cover will still be available for other plans to cover and/or for individuals to pay for individually. Thus, “health care as a concept” does not cease to exist when insurance companies and insurers are allowed to negotiate what is and isn’t covered in the policy rather than the federal gov’t dictating the same.

So, the issues you fail to differentiate is “health care insurance” versus “health care”. One has to do with who pays for what the other is health care.

thus, it is an enormous lie to claim that NOT requiring a catholic institution to pay for someone’s contraception takes away the ability to obtain contraception or somehow dictates the individuals “health care”. it simply says that if you want someone else to pay for your contraception, you shouldn’t work at a catholic institution. It has no bearing on whether contraception is available. It simply bears on who pays for it.

Monkeytoe on October 30, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Because Catholics Muslims have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, forward in history into the 21st Century.

Alpha_Male on October 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Accuracy in commentary on a Conservative blog.

Liam on October 30, 2012 at 3:57 PM

If religious liberty excludes a group from following one law, doesn’t it have the power to exclude them from following all laws? segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM

So let’s do away with the 1st Amendment, which after all is just one big slippery slope.

Akzed on October 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Everyone is saying that this is an attack of religious liberty. I’m trying to figure out where the line between religious liberty and discrimination exists.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

What?

so now it is “discrimination” not to have someone else pay for things for you? You believe that if company a refuses to pay for something for you, it is “discrimination”?

That is now the definition of discrimination in your world?

Whereas, requiring a religious institution to provide things against its very doctrine is not an assault on religious liberty in your world?

How do leftists come to be so devoid of logic?

Monkeytoe on October 30, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Why not? It’s ultimately their money and their risk, which is what insurance is at its face anyway. My plan covers things my friends’ plans don’t and vice versa. I’m confident if we were both diagnosed with strep we’d get the same course of treatment.

SoFlaCon on October 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM

But it’s not their money, and it’s not their risk. It’s our money and our risk.

I don’t know if you’re a Seinfeld fan, but there’s a episode about Jerry reserving the car, going to the place, and them telling him they have no cars left. The car rental place made the reservation, but they didn’t actually hold onto the car. Needless to say, that holding part constitutes the basic idea of a reservation. Without it, reservations are useless.

There has be some universal agreement on what constitutes a product. Otherwise, you’re buying nothing. You’re literally giving your money to a company for nothing. (Which is why the health care market is what it is today)

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Liam on October 30, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Thanks for the addition. By referencing Catholics, given the nature of the posted video, I by no means intended to exclude other regressive religious traditions.

Alpha_Male on October 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

But it’s not their money, and it’s not their risk. It’s our money and our risk. segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

“You didn’t build that… somebody else… made that happen.”

Akzed on October 30, 2012 at 4:03 PM

But does the concept hold for other more mundane things? If religious liberty excludes a group from following one law, doesn’t it have the power to exclude them from following all laws?

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM

There are several constitutional tests that deal with that very question. You’re not asking anything new or novel here that has not been considered in other situations and other issues.

Essentially it comes down to whether the issue is one of long-standing and clearly defined belief on the part of the religion. You also can’t “invent a religion” as a way of getting around an undesirable regulation.

With respect to contraception there’s no question that edicts against birth control and contraception are a clearly defined part of Catholic moral teaching. It may not be what you believe, but clearly it is part of Catholic teaching.

PackerBronco on October 30, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Riddle me this segasez.

A doctor is a highly trained individual that is a man of the mind. He has trained and studied to hold information in his head, troubleshoot a problem, and attempt to solve it. In this process he sacrifices a lot of time and money.

And then along comes you, who may or may not provide any value at all. You may be a man of the mind or you may just be another common looter/weeper.

What right do you hold over the doctor, to demand his labor? Is he ayour slave? Does he operate at the end of your gun? Does he perform his duties at the end of government’s gun?

Do you believe it is morally right to demand another man’s labor in your service? Do you define that as slavery as many on the right would?

tom daschle concerned on October 30, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Once you hand over your money to another party, it’s their money. If you don’t like their services or products, you shouldn’t have purchased them. I’ve yet to be employed anywhere that didn’t allow for review of plans before purchase. One of the options was always to elect out altogether.

Your Seinfeld episode is a false analogy.

SoFlaCon on October 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

seg – if they choose to define a narrow network of providers in their coverage and as a part of that bidding process they will not support hosptitals that do abortions – yes, they should be able to dictate that term.

With regards to the religious preference of the providers I think that might violate the CRA.

Zomcon JEM on October 30, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I don’t necessarily disagree. However, I also don’t feel that not allowing that would be violating their religious freedom. As Ed states above, why should only religious organizations get that protection?

I do think that could lead to some serious issues though. I hate to use the phrase “slippery slope”, but it’s apt. Why stop at just abortions?

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

I don’t think you can have it both ways. I don’t think employers should be able to discriminate “a little” Either employers can discriminate or they can’t.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

that is so idiotic I almost can’t believe I’m bothering to respond, but here goes, in the hope you can begin to see reality from your drug addled haze:

1. When an employer hires someone with experience versus someone without experience – that is discrimination. The employer believes experience is better than non-experience. [hint: Not all discrimination is bad - in fact, we use discrimination (i.e., picking one thing over another based on our experiences and education) all the time.]

2. When an employer hires a Harvard grad instead of a State University grad – that is discrimination. The employer believes Harvard is a better school than State U.

3. When an employer hires a bilingual applicant rather than a non-bilingual applicant – that is discriminating against non-bilingual speakers.

I could go on. The only discrimination that is “bad” is discrimination made illegal based on race, sex or religion and only applies to certain circumstances. Typically, religions institutions are able to discriminate based on the religion for certain things (i.e., a Temple should not be forced to hire a Muslim as Rabbi). Likewise, hollywood/television gets a pass in hiring young beautiful people as “artistic license” although Hollywood/television engages in the most blatant agism in hiring.

So, your comment is idiotic on every level. Employers discriminate every day. When an employer picks a hard working employee for a promotion over a lazy employee – the employer is discriminating against lazy people.

there is no issue of discrimination even remotely applicable here. A religious institution NOT PAYING for you for something that is against its doctrine is not discrimination. Not in the sense you mean it – which is the sense of refusing to hire a person because he/she is black.

So utterly ridiculous. And we let people like this vote.

Monkeytoe on October 30, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Monkeytoe on October 30, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Thanks MT, your point is a point I’ve been making for a quite a while.

I have to bang my head when someone demands that insurance cover a pre-existing condition.

How can you insure against something that already exists?

Hey, I just totaled my car. Now SELL ME MY COLLISION INSURANCE DAMN YOU!!!!

PackerBronco on October 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Because Catholics have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, forward in history.

Alpha_Male on October 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

That’s essentially what the HHS Secretary said. That Catholics would be thanking the government for making them ignore centuries of doctrine in obedience to the state.

Happy Nomad on October 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM

That can’t be up to the individual insurer though, right? I mean, if each individual insurer gets to define what health care is, than health care as a concept doesn’t really exist.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Sure it does. Go to a different insurer. The insurer doesn’t provide any healthcare anyway. They only provide some percentage of payment for certain services. Services that they wish to provide for. Your concept of health insurance is that everyone gets the same and every insurer provide the same services. So what should they all be required to provide? Who decides? What if the universal coverage doesn’t provide for something? How would you get that service? Well you would have to pay for it out of pocket. That is exactly what someone should be doing for BC. By the way are condoms covered? Is this mandate only for women? Isn’t that discrimination?

Frank Enstine on October 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM

There has be some universal agreement on what constitutes a product. Otherwise, you’re buying nothing. You’re literally giving your money to a company for nothing. (Which is why the health care market is what it is today)

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

No – that is wrong. there does not have to be a universal agreement. There has to be an agreement between the purchaser and the seller. What anyone else thinks is entirely irrelevant.

In your mind, nothing exists unless first defined by the gov’t. Therefore, absent some gov’t regulation defining what an insurance policy is, no such policy can exist.

However, insurance policies existed before gov’t started regulating them. Does that blow your mind?

Monkeytoe on October 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Everyone is saying that this is an attack of religious liberty. I’m trying to figure out where the line between religious liberty and discrimination exists.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

.
Speaking only for myself: it doesn’t.

listens2glenn on October 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Monkeytoe on October 30, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I made the mistake of talking to it too… :(

Sounds like every other philosophy 101 freshman I’ve ever had the displeasure to meet.

“How do I know I exist?” herp-derp.

tom daschle concerned on October 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM

You’re deflecting.

I’ll simplify. Should Muslim organizations be able require their employees to see Muslim doctors, or doctors of the same sex?

And yes, in both situations, your employer is dictating what you want and cannot do outside of work hours. It almost seems as though you think that’s kind of crazy…

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM

No – the Muslim employer is not dictating what their employee does outside of work; the employer is controlling what the employer spends it’s own money on. The employer purchases the health insurance in your example – not the employee. The employer should be free to spend it’s money any way it wishes. The employee is free to spend the money they receive for their labor in any way they see fit.

The only issue at hand is the government forcing people to spend their own money on other people.

I’m sure you support the government making you pay for my guns and ammo right? After all if you don’t buy my guns and ammo then you are denying me my 2nd ammendment rights and controlling what I do in my life.

gwelf on October 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Fi

ne. Should a Catholic organization be able to restrict their employees from using their employer purchased health insurance at hospitals and locations that provide abortions?

Everyone is saying that this is an attack of religious liberty. I’m trying to figure out where the line between religious liberty and discrimination exists.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Please stick with the facts. Catholic organizations are not being told that they have to let employees use their insurance at hospitals and locations that provide abortions. Most of these organizations are self-insured. But the real crux of the matter is that the government is saying that the Catholic Church has to pay for such things as contraception free-of-charge as a “right.”

Happy Nomad on October 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM

It becomes a struggle between diamond encrusted solid platinum plans and bare bones barely covers you plans with prices to match.

Another person may just want to pay a huge sum every single month to have everything covered, from massage to that catastrophic event.

Just because we all choose our own solutions does not mean that healthcare is meaningless or not available. It means we decide.

Right now, since I am uninsurable, so too is my 17 month old daughter. This is because of government interference. Not the free market. She has now what is effectively a payment helper. It reduces costs a little bit and promises to help pay for some events in her life. It is very limited, and it is the ONLY thing on the market for children only plans.
astonerii on October 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I disagree with your premise.

I would argue that we aren’t choosing our own solutions because the choices are a facade. We choose options, yes, but do our options help us when we need the help?

In other words, is the affordable, bare-bones plan health care if it doesn’t cover you if you get sick?

I believe that’s the fundamental question. Like making the reservation. If you made the reservation and find that there’s no care, what’s the point of the reservation? If you’re paying for health insurance, shouldn’t you expect some minimum of care?

I would also argue that the reason why there are no children-only plans is that is doesn’t make market sense to provide them. How is government interference reducing the market for children-only plans? Before state insurance programs, there were no affordable plans for children. The government programs were borne out of a lack of care.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Thanks MT, your point is a point I’ve been making for a quite a while.

I have to bang my head when someone demands that insurance cover a pre-existing condition.

How can you insure against something that already exists?

Hey, I just totaled my car. Now SELL ME MY COLLISION INSURANCE DAMN YOU!!!!

PackerBronco on October 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Yeah, this always drives me crazy as well. Republicans are partially to blame though because they never fought the idea that insurance carriers refusing to “cover” people with pre-existing conditions is somehow immoral “discrimination”.

Yes, there is a problem with people with pre-existing conditions and how they pay for health care (considering that typically people with pre-existing conditions have huge health care bills). But it is not wrong or unjust or evil for carriers to refuse to cover them – it makes perfect sense when you understand what insurance is. Basically covering a pre-existing condition is requiring an auto insurance company to cover an accident that occurred before the policy was issued.

Republicans should have been making this point over and over until it was drummed in. But they, as always, ran away scared.

Monkeytoe on October 30, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I would argue that we aren’t choosing our own solutions because the choices are a facade. We choose options, yes, but do our options help us when we need the help?

In other words, is the affordable, bare-bones plan health care if it doesn’t cover you if you get sick?

I believe that’s the fundamental question. Like making the reservation. If you made the reservation and find that there’s no care, what’s the point of the reservation? If you’re paying for health insurance, shouldn’t you expect some minimum of care?

I would also argue that the reason why there are no children-only plans is that is doesn’t make market sense to provide them. How is government interference reducing the market for children-only plans? Before state insurance programs, there were no affordable plans for children. The government programs were borne out of a lack of care.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Exactly, you believe that Gov’t has to take care of everyone cradle to grave and nobody should be allowed to make their own decisions or suffer bad consequences for bad decisions. You are a full-on socialist.

You aren’t arguing from a position of knowledge or logic, just emotion – gov’t should provide and make everything good for everyone. Just b/c it doesn’t work and never has worked doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try it again.

Monkeytoe on October 30, 2012 at 4:19 PM

The Obama administration told Catholics that practicing religion is confined within the walls of a church…Catholic liturgical doctrine disagrees and has disagreed since apostolic times.

The Church has seen many Neros…

workingclass artist on October 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I can’t argue with all of you.

Half of you say that employers should be able to discriminate freely. Others are saying that it’s not discrimination at all.

And then there’s a few obtuse people that think that by discrimination, I’m talking about blacks sitting in diners.

It’s an interesting Constitutional question and I look forward to a Supreme Court judgement on it.

Until then, it is what it is.

But would I make a vegetarian pay for my hamburger? Every chance I got.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

WSJ: Senate Democrats essentially already promising gridlock if Romney wins

This^^^^ was posted yesterday on HotAir Headlines

After reading it, I do worry that Scarry Reid & Co., will continue to obstruct in the senate. Ie. continue to kill bills that the house passes, before they can even be voted on in the senate. I hope, but I’m not confident, that conservatives will take the senate.

kcd on October 30, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I believe that’s the fundamental question. Like making the reservation. If you made the reservation and find that there’s no care, what’s the point of the reservation? If you’re paying for health insurance, shouldn’t you expect some minimum of care?

Yeah, you should expect the minimum of care you bargained for. Somehow that thought doesn’t seep into your brain. An insurance policy is a contract. A contract has terms. The terms are bargained for. Whether you are doing the bargaining or your employer.

You aren’t arguing that one should “expect some minimal level of care”. You are arguing that gov’t should set a very high level of care and force everyone to use that as the floor. In other words, you don’t want people to have the ability to make their own decisions. Which is pretty typical of a leftist.

Monkeytoe on October 30, 2012 at 4:21 PM

That can’t be up to the individual insurer though, right? I mean, if each individual insurer gets to define what health care is, than health care as a concept doesn’t really exist.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM

.
Individual insurers absolutely should get to define what aspects of healthcare their policy with an individual customer will cover.

But, such definitions should be totally clear to the customer, before a policy is purchased.

listens2glenn on October 30, 2012 at 4:22 PM

In other words, is the affordable, bare-bones plan health care if it doesn’t cover you if you get sick?

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM

If you’re asking whether the government has a role in protecting health insurance consumers against fraud, I think everyone here would answer “of course”.

But I think what you’re asking is for the government to come and demand insurers sell a certain kind of policy. And now with ObamaCare we would supplement with: “Health insurers must offer a certain kind of policy and no others.”

For example, let’s just say I want to get a major medical policy with a high deductible. I want insurance to cover catastrophic care but everything else I’ll pay out of my pocket. Oh, I don’t want to pay for “birth control insurance” because I figure I won’t be needing it. I should also add that I’m not buying flood insurance for my home on top of a mountain.

Am I “allowed” to buy that kind of policy?

Now think about that for a moment. Where does the government get the power to tell me what kind of policy I’m allowed to buy?

And in the same respect, why should the government be able tell employers what kinds of fringe benefits they must provide for employees?

PackerBronco on October 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

You can’t argue with anyone because you don’t have the slightest comprehension of the issues being discussed.

Monkeytoe on October 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Everyone is saying that this is an attack of religious liberty. I’m trying to figure out where the line between religious liberty and discrimination exists.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

You don’t see a problem making me pay for your abortion even if I consider it murder?

Why should an employer be required to provide you with anything? Employees are compensated for their labor and are free to do what they will with that compensation.

Of course you believe in central planning of institutions and individual citizens to fit some grand utopian progressive scheme but that’s what got us into this mess in the first place. The reason employers provide health insurance is because FDR prevented companies competing for labor (salary caps) by increasing the wages they offered so employers chose to offer “benefits” as a non-wage way of attracting employees. The healthcare system has suffered because of this development and your solution is more government micro management.

gwelf on October 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM

But would I make a vegetarian pay for my hamburger? Every chance I got.

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

.
I think the all taxpayers should buy me the “stairway to Heaven”.

listens2glenn on October 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM

segasagez on October 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

.
I think the all taxpayers should buy me the “stairway to Heaven”.

listens2glenn on October 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM

.
Including the atheists.

listens2glenn on October 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM

“My uterus is none of your business!” They cry.

But then they demand the government force employers to pay an insurance company to pay the doctor. Which literally _makes_ it the business of taxpayers, the government, their employer, the insurance company, etc.

They demand their freedom be taken away in the name of… Freedom???

Reminds me of the time I tried to explain to a liberal woman why the doctor couldn’t just send the bill to the insurance company saying how much they should pay with no explanation of what was done. Because its none of their business. She still doesn’t get it.

taznar on October 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Reminds me of the time I tried to explain to a liberal woman why the doctor couldn’t just send the bill to the insurance company saying how much they should pay with no explanation of what was done. Because its none of their business. She still doesn’t get it.

taznar on October 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

these people, like segasagez, have no concept of what insurance is. They believe it is simply a system whereby “someone” pays for things they want and that they are entitled to have things they want paid for by this mysterious “someone”. It never occurs to them where the money comes from to pay for the goods and services, or why the system is in place, or anything else.

Which is why we have a ton of Americans who literally believe that if the Gov’t simply orders insurance companies to pay for things it is “free”.

Monkeytoe on October 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Reminds me of the time I tried to explain to a liberal woman why the doctor couldn’t just send the bill to the insurance company saying how much they should pay with no explanation of what was done. Because its none of their business. She still doesn’t get it.

taznar on October 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Now now, Taznar, you know those mean ol insurance companies have all the money in the world!

kcd on October 30, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Reminds me of the time I tried to explain to a liberal woman why the doctor couldn’t just send the bill to the insurance company saying how much they should pay with no explanation of what was done. Because its none of their business. She still doesn’t get it.

taznar on October 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

.
Money Products for nothing, and your checks services for free.

listens2glenn on October 30, 2012 at 4:35 PM

We’ve got so much money to give though!!

DeathtotheSwiss on October 30, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2