(CBS News) A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that most Americans believe there should be an exception for employers who may have a moral or religious objection to covering birth control for their employees.
That would set a dangerous precedent. What about employers who have a religious objection to blood transfusions? Should they be excluded?
Thanks for the link.
It’s better for the free market to work in that case.
I read the article you linked to. In a nutshell the author is basically saying “our religion is correct and that’s why we get to exclude family planning, and your religion is incorrect so you can’t exclude blood transfusions.” I was hoping for a non-religious based explanation - i.e. one based on reason or logic.
I think that any employer ought to be able to decide what kind of insurance coverage to provide or not provide. If other employers provide better coverage, employees will go there. Or perhaps they will stay on and buy their own insurance if the pay is high and they like the company. It ought not to be something mandated by the government.
No one has a right to demand an employer provide health insurance. It’s called a benefit because it’s intended to benefit employees. This is far different than the requirment to provide a safe working environment or worker’s compensation coverage. No one has the right to demand that their employer provide a particular benefit under any insurance policy. One of our clinic’s policy covers Alternative Health Providers (Naturopaths, Acupuncture) the other doesnt. Employees have the right to choose employers who provide the compensation plan appropriate for their health and state in life. A group of Religious sisters does not need birth control pills.
So start with the reality that this is a free country, we have certain basic rights but we don’t have rights to demand employers provide specific benefits. It shouldn’t even need to be a religious objection. Employers and employees look at plans and make decisions like adults. I do this for our clinics. Unfortunately due to these Obamacare mandates our premiums have jumped dramatically. Not a good thing.
Further you must be young or didn’t need birth control pills in your past. Most policies DID NOT cover birth control in the past, not because of religious reasons but because birth control pills are not treating or even preventing an illness. Pregnancy is not an illness. It is only because of the Obama Administration’s seeming obsession with birth control and abortion “rights” that this is even in the mandated coverage. Why not actually mandate something that is necessary? My stepson has Type I diabetes. Does it say anywhere that plans must cover insulin? He’ll die without it and believe me if the policy didn’t provide it (with a co pay) we’d pay our last dollar to keep him alive and healthy. The completely arbitrary and specious arguments for including the Pill, strerilization and abortion inducing drugs are a testimony to the power of lobbyists and ideology rather than logic.
Don’t be looking for logic in all the wrong places
All medical procedures or treatments are not equal. No one is going to die if they do not get prescription birth control that is paid for by their employers.
By your rationale, it would set a “dangerous precedent” if employers were allowed to exclude any number of elective medical treatments from plans they pay for - plastic surgery, IVF, laser vision correction, etc.
I don’t believe that you should be able to exclude any lifesaving treatment no matter how genuine your religious belief. In the case of the catholic employer, getting contraception from another source is a matter of a minor inconvenience. Getting a blood transfusion is a matter of life and death and isn’t something you can shop around to get from another source.
Unless employers cover all medical care or no medical care, there is always going to be some precedent set. Simply decrying precedent is not going to go very far unless you want to advocate an all or nothing system.
Oftentimes, the progressive side of such arguments are all or nothing or black and white. It has to be in order for them to advance it otherwise it doesn’t make sense.
Responsible Catholics should be able to discern and see through such trickery and nonsense.
“Most GOP voters expect Romney nomination.”
How old is this poll?
It’s crazy for contraception to be covered by all…
Being female and being able to concieve once a month is not a medical issue…never has been…
I just checked the page and the poll is from 2012. I thought it was a poll done recently.
I suspect if anything the response would auger toward MORE Americans agreeing that employers shouldn’t be forced to provide contraception. Does anyone think hammering on the Little Sisters of the Poor helps the Obama Administration make its case? I believe more and more people are realizing what an incredible mess was created by Obamacare, particularly these mandates that caused mass cancellations, increased premiums and huge deductibles for those seeking compliant plans.
Who’s dumb idea was this…?
You probably would find similar sentiment today. But then I think it’s because an assumption is made that certain items not being covered leads to lower premiums. That’s my opinion, anyway.
Some of those who are getting the subsidies seem kinda defensive about criticism of ObamaCare.
Leave it to some folks to not see beyond their benefits. :rolleyes:
How Christian is that? :ehh:
The Little Sisters of the Poor is not required to provide birth control to its employees under the Affordable Care Act. Churches and religious groups are exempt or can opt out of providing birth control. The only thing the Little Sisters must do is fill out and sign a one-page form stating that it objects to providing contraception, and send the form to their insurer. End of story.
And if you knew the case you would know why this is not acceptable to the Little Sisters of the Poor. If you didn’t rob the bank but drove the getaway car would that be OK? How about hiring someone to shoot your husband? Giving someone else permission to sin in your name is participating in the sin.