No offense, spidergoat, but I don't think a "right to privacy" argument holds up in this case. Your employer doesn't have to know anything about your medical affairs to not pay for your birthcontrol.
The Catholic Church's War on Healthcare
- Thread starter spidergoat
- Start date
As I understand the flap, the Church is relying on another law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, to exempt them from the contraception mandate. In other words, that law theoretically protects all religious groups from any such attack.
Some argument I see in their rags goes like this: some churches may enjoy the exemption, but the Catholic Church will not, because it serves too many citizens at large (regardless of religion) in its hospitals. In other words, the injury to their religious rights gets diluted by the large population of unknown faiths receiving services. Since no polls are taken at intake, they can't prove their numbers and claim the exemption.
Also note, the Dubbya faith-based initiative stuff pushed more public services into the religious sector, followed by funding to incite the groups like the Catholic Church to rush in and throw more of their capacity at the demand.
So (I am assuming from what I've read) it's partly just an attack on the funded programs they went after. They can pull out, but that would wreak havoc on patients who rely on them. If they completely privatize, then they could (theoretically) require a baptismal certificate at intake, which would probably get them their exemption, but at the expense of Non-Catholic patients.
It seems to drag in a lot of old unresolved issues. So I don't think it's just the simple clash between two forces over this one basic issue, as some of the folks here will say.
Why should people get special privileges to decide what they do or don't want to pay for just because their beliefs are "religious"?
If I, as an atheist, happen to think that some particular medical treatment is morally wrong, why should my opinion carry any less weight than someone who believes that a treatment is wrong for "religious" reasons? Because they base their moral opinions on what they believe their invisible friend in the sky said, while I base them on something else? How about some equal protection over here?!?
If I, as an atheist, happen to think that some particular medical treatment is morally wrong, why should my opinion carry any less weight than someone who believes that a treatment is wrong for "religious" reasons? Because they base their moral opinions on what they believe their invisible friend in the sky said, while I base them on something else? How about some equal protection over here?!?
They would only pay taxes on a profit. But how can a church make a profit? Besides, even if they incorporated, they could retain a board of directors for chicken feed, and all of the residuals that would into shares could just be dumped into charity, leaving no taxable income.
Granting special privileges to religious groups that's aren't enjoyed by others (e.g., the privilege to decide what sort of medical care they do or don't want to cover for their employees) is the opposite of separation of church and state, dumbass.
Edit: It appears that adoucette deleted his post between when I hit the "reply" button and when I posted. So I'll formally withdraw the "dumbass" comment, since it seems he might have come to his senses on his own...
Last edited:
I think contraception (the pill, legal abortion, vasectomy, etc.) was codified under the IRS rules (Section 125) as deductible health care costs, for taxpayers who couldn't get coverage. So I think the issue of whether it is a valid health care cost would fall under the doctrine of settled law.
Also interesting to note - those same rules allow us to define the following as health care expenses (direct quote, not my words):
Sidebar: Looks like the IRS has profiled Hollywood taxpayers quite well.
Maybe, if you could find a rule or law establishing it, then the Due Process clause might engage. Admittedly, it would have to be an actual due process issue.
Of course no one's arguing the right to contraception, but who pays for it.
In the past, de minimis claims, like who pays for the pills, would never even make it past the filing clerk's desk.
So: no.
Only not for profit organizations can normally be considered churches.
20 years in Leavenworth, I presume.
Nope.
I just think explaining the 1st amendment to people who don't understand it is awfully tiring, and ultimately boring.
One of the dilemmas about opposing religious freedom is that, if you weaken it too much, you risk retaining your freedom from religion.
Another atheist position might be to say: I think it's immoral to involve the community in personal decisions, whether it's the church or the state; leave these poor women alone to deal with their personal crises with the smallest amount of dignity espoused under the Declaration and Constitution, the Civil Rights Act, healthcare, tax, housing and employment laws, and all the principles universally held by folks of every stripe, at home and abroad.
Their dignity will continue to be dragged over the coals after this little flap dies down. The right wing just won't leave them alone. The real moral issue, of course, boils down to this picture: the right wing, with its boot on the neck of human dignity. I would pay a thousand Health Care tax penalties to see that boot in the dumpster where it belongs.
Here I think you're separating the issue of knowing about her medical record from the mere intrusion into her mind about something that's nobody else's business but her own. I think it's this second issue that seems like the invasion of privacy.
You thought the law allowed them to discriminate in all hiring, which you were proven wrong about, and now you're attempting to argue semantics, while failing to answer direct questions.
Not only does that mean you are fully aware of how badly you've lost this debate, it sends up red flags about your integrity. Get your act together.
It does.
EEOC said:
So what about that statement does not apply to all hiring?
And once you are given this blanket permission you really can use it as you see fit, since you also control who is considered a member of your religion.
I haven't and so my integrity is fine.
Last edited:
The state is not actually forcing anyone to do anything. There is no requirement that religiously affiliated institutions buy health insurance from the Obamacare exchange. The Catholic church could, for instance, self-insure.
No, it doesn't.
Nothing, until you read the next sentence: "The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious." So we're not talking about hospitals or other places where non-clergy are likely to be employed.
It isn't blanket permission, and no they can't use it as they see fit. This really isn't difficult, so I don't believe you're honestly having this much trouble understanding. The law says they cannot discriminate, but they can give preferential hiring to people of their own religion. This doesn't mean that, failing a qualified candidate of the organization's stated faith, they can simply pass you over, nor does it mean they can pass you over because you're black, or because you're from China. They would be--and have been--wrong in the eyes of the courts for that.
Yes you have. And you still haven't answered the question, so you clearly have no integrity at all.
Yes, it does.
Yes, and if you go back to where you asked this question, it was you who specifically referred to Religious Organizations,
And that would of course be an institution whose "purpose and character are primarily religious."
And so in this tangent that you started that's EXACTLY what we have been discussing.
Do try to keep up.
Last edited:
No, you're confused. Is a Catholic hospital "primarily religious?" Of course not, it's a hospital. It's primary purpose and character is treatment of injury and illness. There are institutions run or supported by religious organization that are not expressly religious in their purpose. That's what this whole discussion has been about, right from the very beginning.
Why am I not surprised you've curled up into this ball of semantics to avoid having an actual exchange of ideas? Typical troll behavior.
You do not appear to actually know anything about constitutional law, civil rights, or the first amendment, so I doubt very much that you would be qualified to explain anything about it to anyone. For example, it seems that in your fantasy world it is a violation of the 1st amendment to NOT grant special privileges to religions.
Nope.
You asked a hypothetical question,
JDawg said:
Which was separate from the discussion on BC pills, about hiring practices of religious organizations, and that's how I answered your question.
As you yourself point out, a Catholic hospital is not "primarily religious", and thus not a religious organization that you were asking about.
Last edited: