Posted on 12/07/2013 5:47:53 PM PST by thecodont
If a corporate employer can refuse on religious grounds to provide workplace insurance for contraception, what about employers with religious objections to blood transfusions or vaccinations? Or those who believe in healing by prayer?
Those questions lurk below the surface of the challenge the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review to regulations in the new federal health care law requiring employers to make contraceptive coverage available to their employees. That mandate, two groups of corporate owners argue, violates their freedom of religion.
If the court agrees, some legal analysts say, other employers would have an equal right to veto any type of health coverage that conflicts with their spiritual beliefs - insurance that covers transfusions, for example, and perhaps any type of conventional medical care, if the employer believes solely in spiritual healing.
The objections are based on a federal law forbidding government actions that burden the free exercise of religion, unless those restrictions are necessary to protect some vital public interest. If an employer can invoke that law to withhold contraceptive coverage, other categories of health insurance may also be vulnerable.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Whew! For a minute there I thought we were discussing a court case over the actions of a private company!!
Birth control isn’t life saving. If you’re so concerned and can’t afford a pill—keep your britches on. Simple.
They are comparing apples and oranges. A blood transfusion and birth control pills? Try winning a real debate with this sort of logic.
we need massive civil disobedience on this
Soon there will be no workplace insurance anyway.
There is a vast difference between pregnancy "prevention" and "pregnancy ending," drugs.
Not only is this a moral objection to intentional murder of the most innocent but there is a law (the Hyde Amendment) forbidding American taxpayers being forced to pay for for abortions though their taxes and that's exactly what this is, no matter what Obama and other would-be baby killers claim to the contrary.
LOL. Try winning a debate with a liberal on the time of day. You can't, because it is whatever time of the day they want it to be.
If a corporate employer can refuse on religious grounds to provide workplace insurance for contraception, what about employers with religious objections to blood transfusions or vaccinations? Or those who believe in healing by prayer? Those questions lurk below the surface of the challenge the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review...Why, it's almost as if Freedom of Religion is actually being used to stand in the way of a one-size-fits-none fake health "law" the real purpose of which is to push the Demagogic Party's single party state agenda. KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF OUR BODIES!!! Thanks thecodont.
Maybe the problem isn’t businesses that have different religious views. Maybe the problem is a federal government that thinks it has the right to mandate that businesses must buy “insurance” for their employees as a price of doing business. BTW, I put insurance in quotes, because it’s not insurance when the business is forced to provide free stuff, like birth control. In a free country, business owners and employees would have the liberty to do whatever is mutually beneficial for them, except that we don’t live in the Land of the Free anymore.
dat iz da troof
This is the 3rd time in a week that I’ve heard the comparison to blood transfusions.
Sandra Fluke, Howard Dean, and now this.
Another lame Talking Point direct from Obama Central
I think the real precedent for this will be the SC cases dealing with Peyote that found religious beliefs are trumped by Federal Law..they will probably lose this one 6-3 or 7-2 ...
“Who are these rubes that take the Bill of Rights seriously?”
So what if a business doesn’t want to pay for blood transfusions? If that did happen for religious (or whatever) reasons, what business does the federal government have getting involved in this stuff in the first place? In a free society, the business could provide or not provide whatever it wanted, and employees would be free to take the job or not.
Employees could CHOOSE not to work for an employer who doesn’t offer the insurance they want.
As usual, the REAL issue is never joined: the irrational, counterproductive linkage of health insurance with employment.
Repeal the 16th Amendment: Problem solved.
Yep.
They have surrendered their own thoughts and get their thoughts from the collective.
Nelson Mandela would be proud.
Well, since it's a....now listen carefully....be..ne..fit, what would be the problem with any of those, so long as they disclose it to any prospective employees interested enough to ask before they take the job??
The company has no moral obligation to provide any insurance at all, so whatever you get, even if weird, is better than you would have got had they not offered it, so long as it's not one of these deals where the insurance tries to poke their nose in your business in the guise of "helping you" or "rewarding you". Apparently for those guys, NOT punishing you constitutes a reward.
I think the genderqueer commies are skeered that we can refuse their immoral mandates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.