Obama Forces Abortion, Condoms and Mornnig After Pills on Catholics

Nobody is forcing anyone to:

1. Have an abortion
2. Use contraception

The law does not apply to churches; it applies to institutions that hire the general public. Are we to believe that if you want to work at a Catholic hospital, that you must sign some sort of vow to uphold Catholicism (whose Catholicism, by the way? Catholics don't agree on this issue), even if you don't believe in it? Don't believe in abortion? Don't perform them, and don't have one. Don't believe in contraception? Don't use it. Nothing is forced on you by allowing other people to make their own decision.

Let's go further with the idea that one must adhere to specific religious beliefs in regard to working in a religiously-sponsored hospital. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions. Let's say you have a Jehovah's Witness-sponsored hospital in which many non-JW's are hired. Should the insurance policy of the hospital exclude life-saving blood transfusions from coverage for all people, including non-JW's, that work there? I'm not saying the hospital has to perform them, but should they actually have the right to deny it to a non-JW if they choose to hire them?

"No, you can't have a blood transfusion unless you pay for it yourself. It's my right to exclude you from a potentially life-saving procedure so that you may be aligned with my religious beliefs, even if you don't hold them."


Btodd

You religious freedom cannot supersede the freedoms of others.

Sorry not even your King says that you have that right.

In fact he Commands you to love like you want to be loved.

Command, not suggests.

None of that is relevant, however. People who work for Catholic organizations are not being compelled to do anything by this new law, nor by their employer. What this law does is compel the employer to provide/pay for something that his religious beliefs reject. The decision is outrageous, a violation of religious liberty, and an unbelievably boneheaded political move by Obama.

Cool, now we're getting somewhere. I can actually understand the objection to abortion if one's religious beliefs dictate that it's murder. So on that part, I am sympathetic. But to follow your line of reasoning here, what is the difference between your point about JW's not objecting to the rest of us getting a blood transfusion, in regard to Catholic beliefs about contraception?

In other words, why can't their view on contraception mirror what you articulated above, in that they don't believe in using it themselves, but leave it up to the rest of us to decide for ourselves. If not, then JW's could object to blood transfusions for other people on the same grounds (it's against my religious belief).

It does not harm the public, nor the Catholic hospital, to allow their non-religious employees (or even their religious ones, since many Catholics do indeed use birth control) to make their own choice. Nobody is 'taking a life' by using contraception.

You can take this to extreme levels of absurdity. Would you support a secular hospital that refused to allow one of its religious employees the right to pray in private during break/lunch time, if they didn't like prayer?

I wanna see how far this 'they can go somewhere else' stuff goes. I get where you're coming from to a point, because I've seen instances in the past where (for instance) an overweight woman sued a local gym for not hiring her as an aerobics instructor on the basis of 'discrimination'. Which is as absurd as me suing the OKC Thunder for not giving me a spot on their team because I'm short and can't shoot the ball.

So I'm willing to give some leeway here, but the contraception thing really doesn't make sense to me.


Btodd

If people want to run around having sexual relations with others that is their business but don't force me to pay to kill you kids.

Something that will help me make a final decision on this is...how are Catholic hospitals funded? I did a cursory check, but didn't find an answer. I think that will likely be the key in my ultimate decision on what the rights of a particular hospital are in using religious belief to dictate what their insurance policy covers. Any verifiable answer will be appreciated, and will likely determine whether I accept this as a 'religious freedom' argument or not.

ETA: In other words, as long as they're privately funded, and receive no government money, then I think I would side with the supposed Catholic position in this instance. But if they're receiving money from the state/federal government, then I would wholeheartedly reject their objections, because it would be using government money to fund a particular religious belief, resulting in discrimination against non-believers.


Btodd

Are you counting Medicare and Medicaid as taking government money? And me not covering something you wish to be covered is not discrimination on my part. What exactly is covered and not covered by a particular employers health care plan should be up to the employer, not the government. If I dont wish to cover mamograms, or viagra, or birth control, why is that any business of the state? You dont have a right to those things, so the government has no business demanding that the employer provide them. We are a free people. Aren't we?