All employers must offer Birth Control.

Mat
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 am
SL Name: Mat
Caste: Warrior
Role: Defender of Freedom

Re: All employers must offer Birth Control.

Postby Mat » Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:42 pm

It seems the next challenger of this law has stepped foward and has received an injunction preventing them from being forced to comply with the law while the case is under review. I can only hope that the judge finds as is being asserted that it is a violation of their first amendment right to be forced to provide birth control.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/judge-temporarily-stops-administration-forcing-christian-family-act-against-faith
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him
...

Re: All employers must offer Birth Control.

Postby ... » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:36 pm

Could be upheld under the first amendment. Would be pretty dumb though. FA's purpose is to protect people from religion (while including provision for freedom of religious practice). Weird that people don't get that.

Like, how about if a Jewish-owned company decided it was going to forbid its workers from spending their cash on pork products. Would that be okay too? Cash is as much part of renumeration for employment as health care, right? Might seem laughable, but would be a real possibility if FA was bastardised to work in favour of the already too-powerful churches of the USA in this way.
Mat
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 am
SL Name: Mat
Caste: Warrior
Role: Defender of Freedom

Re: All employers must offer Birth Control.

Postby Mat » Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:49 am

Oor wrote:
Cash is as much part of renumeration for employment as health care, right?

I really do not think this is the case an employer is not required to offer health care at all to an employee as it stands currently.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him
...

Re: All employers must offer Birth Control.

Postby ... » Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:41 am

Mat wrote:
Oor wrote:
Cash is as much part of renumeration for employment as health care, right?

I really do not think this is the case an employer is not required to offer health care at all to an employee as it stands currently.


So then the catholic church could easily stop offering this thing that apparently goes against their doctrine (even when used by people who think their doctrine is pie-in-the-sky bullshit), and up their cash salary instead to compensate?

Wut they bitching about?
Mat
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 am
SL Name: Mat
Caste: Warrior
Role: Defender of Freedom

Re: All employers must offer Birth Control.

Postby Mat » Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:55 am

Oor wrote:
Mat wrote:
Oor wrote:
Cash is as much part of renumeration for employment as health care, right?

I really do not think this is the case an employer is not required to offer health care at all to an employee as it stands currently.


So then the catholic church could easily stop offering this thing that apparently goes against their doctrine (even when used by people who think their doctrine is pie-in-the-sky bullshit), and up their cash salary instead to compensate?

Wut they bitching about?

They would not need to up their salary if they stopped, actually more than likely lower it as they now have to pay an additional tax on it but that is a different discussion. Why they are upset is that they would like to offer health insurance to their people, but they would like to offer it without the birth control included. It should not be either or type of situation.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: All employers must offer Birth Control.

Postby Glaucon » Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:18 am

As I understand it, if they don't offer health care, they would pay a penalt... uh... I mean, an extra tax. :)

I do get the position. Effectively, the government is forc... I mean, penal... uhm... tax-encounraging them to offer health care with minimal requirements as determined by government agencies which, for justifiable reasons, include birth-control, which can be translated as the government forcing them to offer insurance that MIGHT be used to pay for birth control. If their employees CHOOSE to commit the mortal sin risking mudering Jesus Christ reborn in their bellies by not allowing the holy seed grow, that is.

At the same time, this is true for any cash their employees get as well, the only difference being that the portion of the health-care contribution paying for birth control is already allocated, meaning they cannot get it back. Of course, it should be clear that Jesus Christ himself (as far as one can make out from the bible, and as far as that reports his style accurately) would not give a toss about something as clearly insignificant and materialistic as this. He would probably shrug and tell people to render unto Obama what was Obama's. And after all, he didn't have a major problem with tax either, given that he was happy to have dinner with tax collectors. If anything, he would perhaps have raged like he did at the Temple market, if he saw his name dragged into some petty political tax/penalty dispute. But then again, a Catholic is a follower of people wearing funny hats, and only indirectly of Jesus.

Anyways... clearly, religious freedom is in no way threatened by this whole thing. It is a political argument involving religious freedom that can be made, and thus is made, not a real issue facing these organizations.
Mat
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 am
SL Name: Mat
Caste: Warrior
Role: Defender of Freedom

Re: All employers must offer Birth Control.

Postby Mat » Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:29 am

Glaucon wrote:As I understand it, if they don't offer health care, they would pay a penalt... uh... I mean, an extra tax. :)

I do get the position. Effectively, the government is forc... I mean, penal... uhm... tax-encounraging them to offer health care with minimal requirements as determined by government agencies which, for justifiable reasons, include birth-control, which can be translated as the government forcing them to offer insurance that MIGHT be used to pay for birth control.

The question is though what is more beneficial to people? Is it to have health insurance denied to them completely because some insist that it include controversial provisions or to have health insurance in general that does not include potential the controversial item? I would think it is better to have it minus the BC pill vs not have it with it.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: All employers must offer Birth Control.

Postby Glaucon » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:26 am

Mat wrote:
Glaucon wrote:As I understand it, if they don't offer health care, they would pay a penalt... uh... I mean, an extra tax. :)

I do get the position. Effectively, the government is forc... I mean, penal... uhm... tax-encounraging them to offer health care with minimal requirements as determined by government agencies which, for justifiable reasons, include birth-control, which can be translated as the government forcing them to offer insurance that MIGHT be used to pay for birth control.

The question is though what is more beneficial to people? Is it to have health insurance denied to them completely because some insist that it include controversial provisions or to have health insurance in general that does not include potential the controversial item? I would think it is better to have it minus the BC pill vs not have it with it.


For people? Clearly, it would be best to have what the Affordable Care Act intended, people getting the coverage which includes birth control. I cannot be certain, following this stuff from far away, but I do get the impression that the objections of these religion-linked employers, including claims of some that they would rather pay the penalt... sorry, tax, than pay for health care for their employees if it includes birth control coverage can only be explained as part of the larger anti Obamacare political narrative. One would assume that, without the political context, even Catholic/Christian organizations would find enough Chrisitanity within themselves to want the best for their employees, if the alternative would cost them more.
Mat
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 am
SL Name: Mat
Caste: Warrior
Role: Defender of Freedom

Re: All employers must offer Birth Control.

Postby Mat » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:31 am

Glaucon wrote:
Mat wrote:
Glaucon wrote:As I understand it, if they don't offer health care, they would pay a penalt... uh... I mean, an extra tax. :)

I do get the position. Effectively, the government is forc... I mean, penal... uhm... tax-encounraging them to offer health care with minimal requirements as determined by government agencies which, for justifiable reasons, include birth-control, which can be translated as the government forcing them to offer insurance that MIGHT be used to pay for birth control.

The question is though what is more beneficial to people? Is it to have health insurance denied to them completely because some insist that it include controversial provisions or to have health insurance in general that does not include potential the controversial item? I would think it is better to have it minus the BC pill vs not have it with it.


For people? Clearly, it would be best to have what the Affordable Care Act intended, people getting the coverage which includes birth control. I cannot be certain, following this stuff from far away, but I do get the impression that the objections of these religion-linked employers, including claims of some that they would rather pay the penalt... sorry, tax, than pay for health care for their employees if it includes birth control coverage can only be explained as part of the larger anti Obamacare political narrative. One would assume that, without the political context, even Catholic/Christian organizations would find enough Chrisitanity within themselves to want the best for their employees, if the alternative would cost them more.

You seem to think that politics is something divorced from situations that politics somehow drive peoples actions but it is quite the other way peoples beliefs and concerns drive their politics. Either way on can not divorce the situation from politics religion is very political after all. So the question remains and you are correct some people would rather not provide insurance at all than to be forced to provide something they do not believe is correct.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: All employers must offer Birth Control.

Postby Glaucon » Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:07 am

Mat wrote:You seem to think that politics is something divorced from situations that politics somehow drive peoples actions but it is quite the other way peoples beliefs and concerns drive their politics.


It is my impression (which I cannot prove right now, that would involve a major study) that in the USA today, politics is in the driver's seat where politics and religion converge. The republican party almost seems to use religion as a political resource. For example, they actively and openly attempt to get topics that religious people care about on ballots in States, to get the religious people come and vote, hoping they will not just vote on that item or referendum, but also go on to vote for the 'conservative' man or woman. Most religions or religious organizations themselves don't really seem to be benefitting all that much from the whole political/religious narratives. Catholic churches don't fill up over the birth control issue. But republicans do seem to win votes over it. So, when it comes to this issue, I feel it is the politics that is in the driver's seat, and that the religions are only half-willing passangers. Many religion-linked employers DON'T involve themselves in this whole controversy, after all.

Either way on can not divorce the situation from politics religion is very political after all.


Is it? Well, I'd say it tends to be, historically. But I'd guess that people with a more devout outlook than mine would disagree and say that religion doesn't have much to do with politics at all.

So the question remains and you are correct some people would rather not provide insurance at all than to be forced to provide something they do not believe is correct.


True. Then again, if you want to rescue people from the Titanic, and you want to take women and children first, and some of the women on board are in fact kajirae owned by Gorean men who say they would rather have them drown with them before letting those worthless slaves take their rightful place in the lifeboats, should you let that influence your decision to rescue women and children first?

(Yeah, I know... screwed up example, but you get what i mean). ;)

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron