Religious Liberty?

[bennyboy]

Deliberately drawing on other threads in a clear ad hom attack is trolling.  Are you going to follow the guy thread to thread, using quotes and links to make sure that his voice in new threads is silenced?

I think PMs and complaints to admins would be a more appropriate way of dealing with him if he's violating forum rules.  If he's not, then I'm pretty sure you are.  To be frank, if I was Chad, I would complain to admins-- though I doubt he will bother.

To be frank, no one asked you.

It's a free service. You can thank me later.

ETA: how is it you're not doing exactly what you're complaining at me about?

I'm responding only to things you've said in this thread. If you want to call Chad names or say he's being dishonest in this thread, that's fine. But when you start not only bringing in links and quotes from other threads, but repeatedly stating that you're going to keep doing so until he responds, you are trolling. Now, you've just skipped a post in which I said something I think you'll disagree with. How about we stop talking about Chad, and you can tell us what you think of my OP-relevant comment?

[ohreally]

I understand the reasoning but I think you are leaving out the fact that a business is not a doctor and that a business doesn't write prescriptions nor make medical decisions.  If the business wants to offer health care then they should do that and if they don't want to offer health care then that is fine.  Cherry picking a patient/medical provider procedures or prescriptions based on how they feel is not sound.  This is based on me doing 5 min of research and not being able to find a plan that doesn't include contraception unless it has specially exempted, not sure if that even saved Hobby Lobby any money.

I think Christians don't generally see pregnancy as unhealthy, which is why they don't think preventing it belongs in a health care plan.  They see reproduction as the natural outcome of the sexual act, and they don't want to be complicit in paying for attempts to thwart nature.  What's worse, they see God's design in that nature, and it is clear in their religion that attempts to thwart it are sins.  Surely, if their unwillingness to participate in the sins of others (as their religion has long seen it) is legislated against, then the separation of church and state has been broken, and the American constitution needs to be rewritten.

From this perspective, let me draw an analogy to another biological process whose purpose is set aside: eating.  Let's say an employee wants access to stomach staples, special drugs that cause food to be undigested, etc. because they want to be thin.  Should the health-care plan pay for this?  Should the employee say, "Fuck you and your religious bullshit, who are you to tell me I can't eat a pizza when I choose to?  Who are you to prevent me from living the life I want, and doing what I want with my body?"  Nobody is preventing you-- but they expect you to shoulder the burden for the likely outcome of your actions.  The predictable result of eating pizza is gaining weight-- so if you want to eat the pizza and stay thin, you'll have to arrange on your own dime to avoid that conequence.

That's the thing about pregnancy.  It's the predictable outcome of a willful and deliberate act, not a virus or bacterial invasion or a genetic deficiency beyond people's control.  That people want to have sex, but do not want to suffer its consequences, shouldn't really be a company's problem.  Yes, I know the outrage will be there: "We NEED sex, it's an important part of a married relationship, it has an effect on brain chemistry, who are you to tell me what to do?" etc.  But people can make those same arguments about almost any activity: eating, smoking, surfing, weekend orgies, playing Scrabble.  Will you extend all those people extra benefits?

A few rambling thoughts.

You seem to be combining a few things, sex, BC and consequences.  Isn't the moral objection just BC?  Maybe i've not been paying attention but I don't think sex, it's consequences  or lack there of are enforceable on an employee by an employer.  

Medical plans are not about treating only the sick, it's about preventive health as well, which in this case preventing a pregnancy is preventive health care.   And birth control can be prescribed for a number of other medical reasons, all which have nothing to do with sex or pregnancy.

What is the difference between paying an employee a wage and having them buy BC vs. providing a required by law medical plan that provides BC?  In both scenarios the employer is  directly paying for the employee's BC.  There would actually be more degrees of separation with a medical plan.

[bennyboy]

You seem to be combining a few things, sex, BC and consequences.  Isn't the moral objection just BC?  Maybe i've not been paying attention but I don't think sex, it's consequences  or lack there of are enforceable on an employee by an employer.

I don't know what "BC" means, but let me address the last statement. Sex is usually only a health issue if someone chooses to engage in behaviors that make it an issue. Therefore, asking an employer to pay for sex-related health care makes the corporation (at least in Christians' eyes) complicit in that behavior. Presumably they are not against women's health care for other things: cancer screening, emergency hysterectomy, etc., or for treating actual infectious diseases.

Medical plans are not about treating only the sick, it's about preventive health as well, which in this case preventing a pregnancy is preventive health care.   And birth control can be prescribed for a number of other medical reasons, all which have nothing to do with sex or pregnancy.

Pregnancy isn't an illness. It's the proper functioning of the female reproductive system. That's why employers shouldn't have to include terminating or preventing pregnancies as part of health care, any more than they should pay for my monthly haircuts.

Pregnancy is preventable without the involvement of a health care system. If some women want to prevent pregnancy in a particular way, then they should bear the responsibility of making it happen. As for "other medical reasons," fine: let a doctor make that call, and if a woman has a serious condition which requires medication or surgery, I doubt even Christian companies would object.

What is the difference between paying an employee a wage and having them buy BC vs. providing a required by law medical plan that provides BC?  In both scenarios the employer is  directly paying for the employee's BC.  There would actually be more degrees of separation with a medical plan.

My solution is that the government should run women's-health / sex clinics like Planned Parenthood, and that the minimum wage should be higher. This should enable people to get all the care they need, to afford additional options like the pill or UIDs, and should ensure that women out of work can still get assistance anyway. But in cases where health care is provided by the employer, I think minimal standards should be required-- and the minimal standard for pregnancy prevention is abstinence.

With regard to other scenarios, let me say this. I'm vegetarian. If I were required to feed my workers (I'm not, obviously), I wouldn't want to be involved in the purchase or distribution of meat. I'd most likely offer a vegetarian buffet or optional food voucher. In addition, although I know my employees eat meat, I will still pay them for their work, as what they do with their money is their privilege, and any moral "karma" that might be involved is up to them.

Ideally as an employer, I'd like to be able to put a "vegetarian employees only" stipulation when hiring, and put a vegetarian-only clause in my contracts. But I can't do that. I can only choose not to voluntarily do any more than I'm legally required to do in contributing to the deaths of animals. You don't get to say, "The rest of us don't consider animals important, so you have to buy meat for us."

[Joods]

BC means Birth control

[bennyboy]

BC means Birth control

Yes, I see that now.  I was thinking about health care, and reading it as maybe meaning "Basic Coverage" or something, but looking again it's pretty clear.  Thank you.

[ohreally]

You seem to be combining a few things, sex, BC and consequences.  Isn't the moral objection just BC?  Maybe i've not been paying attention but I don't think sex, it's consequences  or lack there of are enforceable on an employee by an employer.

I don't know what "BC" means, but let me address the last statement.  Sex is usually only a health issue if someone chooses to engage in behaviors that make it an issue.  Therefore, asking an employer to pay for sex-related health care makes the corporation (at least in Christians' eyes) complicit in that behavior.  Presumably they are not against women's health care for other things: cancer screening, emergency hysterectomy, etc., or for treating actual infectious diseases.

Medical plans are not about treating only the sick, it's about preventive health as well, which in this case preventing a pregnancy is preventive health care.   And birth control can be prescribed for a number of other medical reasons, all which have nothing to do with sex or pregnancy.

Pregnancy isn't an illness.  It's the proper functioning of the female reproductive system.  That's why employers shouldn't have to include terminating or preventing pregnancies as part of health care, any more than they should pay for my monthly haircuts.

Pregnancy is preventable without the involvement of a health care system.  If some women want to prevent pregnancy in a particular way, then they should bear the responsibility of making it happen.  As for "other medical reasons," fine: let a doctor make that call, and if a woman has a serious condition which requires medication or surgery, I doubt even Christian companies would object.

What is the difference between paying an employee a wage and having them buy BC vs. providing a required by law medical plan that provides BC?  In both scenarios the employer is  directly paying for the employee's BC.  There would actually be more degrees of separation with a medical plan.

My solution is that the government should run women's-health / sex clinics like Planned Parenthood, and that the minimum wage should be higher.  This should enable people to get all the care they need, to afford additional options like the pill or UIDs, and should ensure that women out of work can still get assistance anyway.  But in cases where health care is provided by the employer, I think minimal standards should be required-- and the minimal standard for pregnancy prevention is abstinence.

With regard to other scenarios, let me say this.  I'm vegetarian.  If I were required to feed my workers (I'm not, obviously), I wouldn't want to be involved in the purchase or distribution of meat.  I'd most likely offer a vegetarian buffet or optional food voucher.  In addition, although I know my employees eat meat, I will still pay them for their work, as what they do with their money is their privilege, and any moral "karma" that might be involved is up to them.

Ideally as an employer, I'd like to be able to put a "vegetarian employees only" stipulation when hiring, and put a vegetarian-only clause in my contracts.  But I can't do that.  I can only choose not to voluntarily do any more than I'm legally required to do in contributing to the deaths of animals.  You don't get to say, "The rest of us don't consider animals important, so you have to buy meat for us."

I hate the quoting system on this forum, I just got tired of losing everything I had written and typing out birth control 13 times.

-You are including things again that aren't controllable by the company.  BC is prescribed for other things than sexually related.  You are making an automatic leap that the person on BC is having sex.  And since the employer is removed from the scenario and is not actually dispensing out BC it's not their concern.

-Preventive health care is about maintaining the overall health of a patient and the qualities of that level of health and care are determined by the patient and health care provider, none of the wishes of the business are involved in any other part of the health care provided.   Not releasing an egg from an ovary is no more properly functional than releasing an egg from an ovary.  Haircut is a poor analogy as it's not part of health care.

-A health care package provided by an employer is part of compensation for that job performed.  A paid dollar wage is part of compensation for that job performed.    No matter what bucket of expense you put it in, compensation for the job performed is paying for that BC.  Are you in finance?  I feel like i'm at work.

A just as meaningful scenario would be that you provide food services in the form of a large coupon with many options, and I choose a place to redeem that coupon and because the food I want to eat prevents the release of an egg from an ovary that you some how can be involved in that part of a human body more than any other function of a human body.

[bennyboy]

I hate the quoting system on this forum, I just got tired of losing everything I had written and typing out birth control 13 times.

-You are including things again that aren't controllable by the company.  BC is prescribed for other things than sexually related.  You are making an automatic leap that the person on BC is having sex.  And since the employer is removed from the scenario and is not actually dispensing out BC it's not their concern.

If the person is not preventing pregnancy, then whatever the pill or device involved, it's not birth control by definition.

-Preventive health care is about maintaining the overall health of a patient and the qualities of that level of health and care are determined by the patient and health care provider, none of the wishes of the business are involved in any other part of the health care provided.   Not releasing an egg from an ovary is no more properly functional than releasing an egg from an ovary.  Haircut is a poor analogy as it's not part of health care.

Given the proper definition of "birth control" I gave above, then being pregnant is not part of health care, either. Pregnancy is not an illness.

-A health care package provided by an employer is part of compensation for that job performed.  A paid dollar wage is part of compensation for that job performed.    No matter what bucket of expense you put it in, compensation for the job performed is paying for that BC.  Are you in finance?  I feel like i'm at work.

When the health care package is mandated by the government, and when parts of that package go against a company-owner's religious beliefs, then you have a conflict between religion and state. I'm fine with this, as I care little for religious institutions. However, if you're going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk-- and America, both in law and in spirit, guarantees certain rights to religious institutions and their members. If you want to steamroll over religious beliefs, then the constitution and the laws that uphold it must be amended. I'm all for it-- fuck them all. But they have not all been fucked yet, and so you have to take their beliefs, and the actions that arise from them, into more serious consideration.

A just as meaningful scenario would be that you provide food services in the form of a large coupon with many options, and I choose a place to redeem that coupon and because the food I want to eat prevents the release of an egg from an ovary that you some how can be involved in that part of a human body more than any other function of a human body.

I think this is a special pleading argument. Yes, some things used to prevent pregnancy can be used for other purposes. However, this is not what the Christian groups care about. Clearly, they feel that the prevention of pregnancy is wrong, and they do not want to contribute to their employee's ability to do so.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Religious liberty is more broadly is about freedom of conscience. A moral objection is a moral objection regardless of whether it is religiously motivated. Think pacifism. If you curtail the liberties of the religious you have also undermined everyone's liberty to act in accordance with their consciences, including atheists.

[ohreally]

If the person is not preventing pregnancy, then whatever the pill or device involved, it's not birth control by definition.    

-Excellent then an employer doesn't have the ability to restrict those prescriptions in the face of doctor/patient confidentiality, both sides win, case closed.

Given the proper definition of "birth control" I gave above, then being pregnant is not part of health care, either.  Pregnancy is not an illness.  As I stated previously, health care is not limited strictly to illness or sick so given a modern and conventional definition of health care your 

Considering that all major insurance companies and hospitals consider BC to be part of health care I would say that that your interpretation is incorrect.  As i stated initially, health care is not only about illness.

Also what is the doctrine of validating ones religious beliefs that their employees must adhere to?

[bennyboy]

If the person is not preventing pregnancy, then whatever the pill or device involved, it's not birth control by definition.    

-Excellent then an employer doesn't have the ability to restrict those prescriptions in the face of doctor/patient confidentiality, both sides win, case closed.

Yeah, probably. Just stop calling it birth control, and call it "other services" or something. It's like a pot prescription-- you skin your knee, you want a remedy for your pain, you get the prescription because the doctor has that degree of discretionary power.

Given the proper definition of "birth control" I gave above, then being pregnant is not part of health care, either.  Pregnancy is not an illness.  As I stated previously, health care is not limited strictly to illness or sick so given a modern and conventional definition of health care your 

Considering that all major insurance companies and hospitals consider BC to be part of health care I would say that that your interpretation is incorrect.  As i stated initially, health care is not only about illness.

Health care is about maintaining good health. Pregnancy is not bad health-- it is an expression of both personal and genetic fitness.

It's hard for me to argue with you, because I'm perfectly fine with including birth control in a health care plan. In my own case, and as an employer of half a dozen people, I'd not only include birth control, I also offer other health-benefits, like gym membership, which aren't government-mandated.

However, I know a little about America's constitution: separation of church and state, freedom of speech, etc. and it seems to me that if the state forces an employer to pay for aspects of a health plan that go against that employer's religious beliefs, there's a conflict. It seems to me that the government could fairly easily avoid this conflict, by supporting Planned Parenthood much more and pressing companies less. Reducing costs of pharmaceuticals like the pill, and increasing minimum wage, would help a lot too.

I just don't think forcing religious employers to adopt non-religious morals is the right tack.