Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

[jules.LT]

I don't know if it's lost something now that Osama is dead.

Well, I read it as "Obama" and it still made perfect sense

[KnightExemplar]

The former is irrelevant; the strength of someone's belief that contraception is murder or that war is murder has no bearing on whether or not they must abide by the law.

However, it does have pretty strong bearing on the morality of the law.

I guess, but that's largely secondary to how it affects people's actual rights. I would imagine that there are cultures in which most people believe that killing somebody of another religion is acceptable, but that ultimately wouldn't override the moral necessity of a law banning that practice.

My post was tailored for Malice's counterposts. I feel that his counterargument avoids the deeper moral and philosophical issues behind the Religious Exemption.

Which seems to clearly state that the only relevant characteristic is the "religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor". So yes, anyone could (should the Blunt amendment become law) simply say "All preventive care is against my moral convictions, therefore I don't have to pay for any of it for my workers."

Of course that is a fair criticism of the Blunt Amendment. So the Blunt Amendment needs to be narrowed. The point I was making with the current law is that it is possible to create wording that would be hard to abuse.

Overall, this country has a tradition of not stepping on people's faiths. Quakers and the Amish were allowed to be Conscientious Objectors to the Draft in WWI, because their religion calls for them to be total pacifists. (Other religions like Catholicism were not allowed, because that religion is not a religion of total pacifism). As an issue of identity and culture, it is typically American ideals to not try and wipe out that culture, but cultivate it within our home. People of all religions should feel welcome and not forced to choose between nationalism and their religious identity. It is part of what has made this country great: the ability for people of all religions to be proud to be an American, because being an American does not contradict their own identity. We are not a singular identity, but a melting pot of cultures. And we must work to protect that.

I feel this an important trait of this country. So its rather unfortunate to see so many people against it in this topic.

[Darryl]

The former is irrelevant; the strength of someone's belief that contraception is murder or that war is murder has no bearing on whether or not they must abide by the law.

However, it does have pretty strong bearing on the morality of the law.

I guess, but that's largely secondary to how it affects people's actual rights. I would imagine that there are cultures in which most people believe that killing somebody of another religion is acceptable, but that ultimately wouldn't override the moral necessity of a law banning that practice.

My post was tailored for Malice's counterposts. I feel that his counterargument avoids the deeper moral and philosophical issues behind the Religious Exemption.

Which seems to clearly state that the only relevant characteristic is the "religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor". So yes, anyone could (should the Blunt amendment become law) simply say "All preventive care is against my moral convictions, therefore I don't have to pay for any of it for my workers."

Of course that is a fair criticism of the Blunt Amendment. So the Blunt Amendment needs to be narrowed. The point I was making with the current law is that it is possible to create wording that would be hard to abuse.

Overall, this country has a tradition of not stepping on people's faiths. Quakers and the Amish were allowed to be Conscientious Objectors to the Draft in WWI, because their religion calls for them to be total pacifists. (Other religions like Catholicism were not allowed, because that religion is not a religion of total pacifism). As an issue of identity and culture, it is typically American ideals to not try and wipe out that culture, but cultivate it within our home. People of all religions should feel welcome and not forced to choose between nationalism and their religious identity. It is part of what has made this country great: the ability for people of all religions to be proud to be an American, because being an American does not contradict their own identity. We are not a singular identity, but a melting pot of cultures. And we must work to protect that.

I feel this an important trait of this country. So its rather unfortunate to see so many people against it in this topic.

Except that's not what's at stake here. What's at stake is whether one employer's rights trump those of their hundreds or thousands of employees.

[KnightExemplar]

When that group of employers is religious in nature, and when those employers object to the new law on religious grounds... then yes, this is a religious issue.

BTW: I'm not arguing to convince anyone here. I'm not that naive. I just wish to demonstrate that despite the super right-wing bastards like Rush Limbaugh, there is a deeper issue at hand here. I've remained silent in other topics, and those topics seem to turn into anti-religious jerkfests. (Perhaps because of people like Limbaugh, who's hurtful words escalate the argument.) I doubt thats the true nature of people on this board however... so I think its just an issue of one side remaining silent for whatever reason.

[Darryl]

When that group of employers is religious in nature, and when those employers object to the new law on religious grounds... then yes, this is a religious issue.

BTW: I'm not arguing to convince anyone here. I'm not that naive. I just wish to demonstrate that despite the super right-wing bastards like Rush Limbaugh, there is a deeper issue at hand here. I've remained silent in other topics, and those topics seem to turn into anti-religious jerkfests. I doubt thats the true nature of people on this board however... so I think its just an issue of one side remaining silent for whatever reason.

Except I don't see why a non-Catholic working for a Catholic employer should have to deal with that abrogation of their rights. We're not talking about employees of the church itself, who are dealing in religious parts of the job, we're talking about nurses, doctors, orderlies, and receptionists at Catholic hospitals. (And before you say they can work at a non-Catholic hospital, that's really not an option in some areas. Employment is only technically a voluntary relationship as it stands. It's very easy to get trapped by lack of funds to move for a new job or by insurance.) So again, why do the employer's religious rights trump the employees' rights to control their own bodies?

[gmalivuk]

When that group of employers is religious in nature, and when those employers object to the new law on religious grounds... then yes, this is a religious issue.

Sure, but religion doesn't trump everything else, and trumps even less else for an institution like Georgetown that doesn't serve or employ people of one faith exclusively.

If your religion believed a legally enforced minimum wage was immoral, they wouldn't be exempt from minimum wage laws. If your religion believed paying hourly employees seven days after the end of their pay periods instead of six was mandated by God, that wouldn't stop their practice being illegal in the state of Massachusetts.

And, along those same lines, if your religion believes birth control is wrong, that doesn't exempt you from including it with your university's health plan.

[clockworkmonk]

But the imposition isn't on religious organizations. It is targeted at insurance companies that cover things that religious organizations don't agree with.

The church isn't even required to pay for the coverage of birth control, the insurance company provides it to the consumer for free. Some argue that this will result in rate increases for everyone, but that is silly on the surface as babies are very expensive, and birth control is comparatively very cheap.

[Dauric]

Except that's not what's at stake here. What's at stake is whether one employer's rights trump those of their hundreds or thousands of employees.

This^ is kind of the thing. Respecting one's religious pacifist leanings by not drafting them is a restriction of the large group from trampling the individual. We're not talking about some mom-and-pop store selling bibles and christian iconography, a job were an employee's religious leanings is arguably important. We're talking about massive large-business employers, for whom their employee's religious leanings are not a factor in their employment, imposing top-down religious standards on their individual employees.

To reiterate: Being Catholic isn't a requirement to work at a catholic-sponsored hospital. This furor over catholic hospitals paying for health insurance that provides contraception is an end run around the rights of the individual employee to use their remuneration for their time and effort as the individual employee sees fit. Now we can either make it so that Catholic hospitals require their employees to be catholic, which makes the health insurance thing a non-issue for the U.S. government and the Catholics can hash it out within their own organization, or the hospitals have to employ anyone regardless of religion, and in so doing they have to conform to general labor laws like any other non-religious employer.

What's even worse is that this isn't really coming from U.S. Catholics, but from the hierarchy based in Vatican City. A foreign -government- is pissy that operations they support in the U.S. have to abide by U.S. labor laws. They've been pissy about it since similar laws were passed in the 1970's. To top off the whole thing the requirement was upheld -twice- in the BushII administration (2001 and 2006) but didn't get a whole lot of attention, but now that it's an evil Democratic administration upholding the requirement it's a Big Deal to rile the social conservatives. This isn't a freedom of religion issue for the politicians pushing it, it's a dogwhistle to get the GOP social conservative base out to the polls in an election year when the GOP membership doesn't care much for any of their candidates.

[Xeio]

Of course that is a fair criticism of the Blunt Amendment. So the Blunt Amendment needs to be narrowed. The point I was making with the current law is that it is possible to create wording that would be hard to abuse.

Overall, this country has a tradition of not stepping on people's faiths. Quakers and the Amish were allowed to be Conscientious Objectors to the Draft in WWI, because their religion calls for them to be total pacifists. (Other religions like Catholicism were not allowed, because that religion is not a religion of total pacifism). As an issue of identity and culture, it is typically American ideals to not try and wipe out that culture, but cultivate it within our home. People of all religions should feel welcome and not forced to choose between nationalism and their religious identity. It is part of what has made this country great: the ability for people of all religions to be proud to be an American, because being an American does not contradict their own identity. We are not a singular identity, but a melting pot of cultures. And we must work to protect that.

They still want to narrow it so that they can deny coverage of birth control, regardless of medical need. My employer's religious beliefs should not have any influence on my ability to access life saving (or even non-life saving) medically necessary care. You have the right to practice your faith, you do not have a right to exert it on others.

And even this is just one of the 'tame' examples of contentious objection exceptions, look for example at the Protect Life Act (which happily did not pass) which essentially does nothing but ensure that people will die due to it and flies in the face of the entire point of emergency medical services.

[Ghostbear]

When that group of employers is religious in nature, and when those employers object to the new law on religious grounds... then yes, this is a religious issue.

Which would still be favoring the rights of the employer over the rights of the employee.

The issue I, and it seems many others here, have with the religious practice opposition is that in the case of an entity with significant non-religion specific members (such as the oft-mentioned universities and hospitals), is that allowing those institutions to object on religions grounds has the end result of allowing them to force others to adhere to their religious doctrine. If they want to do that, they already can: by not allowing people that aren't members of their faith to work at or use those institutions. By not putting that requirement in place, they're tacitly accepting that people who use or work there will not be specifically of their faith, nor adhere to all of its requirements.

Actually, despite all the claims of 1st amendment rights, I think allowing a specific contraceptive exemption could have issues with the amendment itself, as it'd be respecting specific established religions. Which is why they try to set up broader exemptions, but the issue with those is that they're just horrible policy; anyone could claim moral or religious objections to federal regulations at that point.

[aeki]

When that group of employers is religious in nature, and when those employers object to the new law on religious grounds... then yes, this is a religious issue.

BTW: I'm not arguing to convince anyone here. I'm not that naive. I just wish to demonstrate that despite the super right-wing bastards like Rush Limbaugh, there is a deeper issue at hand here. I've remained silent in other topics, and those topics seem to turn into anti-religious jerkfests. (Perhaps because of people like Limbaugh, who's hurtful words escalate the argument.) I doubt thats the true nature of people on this board however... so I think its just an issue of one side remaining silent for whatever reason.

"Anything that tries to separate the pleasure from the potential procreation is sinful" is not a valid argument for cutting off women's access to health care, and it's frustrating that so many people assume that it is on the basis that it is "religious" - as though it's okay to throw logic out the window once someone invokes Jesus. That's why people here are pushing back against the "religious liberty" argument and trying to discuss it in terms of employee benefits and insurance regulations.

[Dauric]

... allowing those institutions to object on religions grounds has the end result of allowing them to force others to adhere to their religious doctrine.

^ This is probably the best phrasing I've seen of the problem yet and bears reiterating. In no job where religion is not a factor of employment (IE: it's not something they do, or can, ask on the job application) does the employer gain the right to restrict their employee's use of remunerations from the job based on the employer's religious doctrine.

Hell, even if religious affiliation -is- part of the job, restrictions on the use of employee remunerations is a factor of membership in the religion, it is -still- not part of the employee-employer relationship. U.S. Catholics often disagree on the issue of contraception with the upper hierarchy of the Church, and allowing the employer to de-facto enforce hierarchy rules on the individual employee prevents the employee from exercising their own right to free expression of religion.

[quantumcat42]

My workplace doesn't stock the breakroom with cheeseburgers. How dare they impose their vegan beliefs on me?

[maybeagnostic]

My workplace doesn't stock the breakroom with cheeseburgers. How dare they impose their vegan beliefs on me?

Are you under the impression all non-vegan workplaces are required by law to stock their breakrooms with cheeseburgers?

[Dauric]

My workplace doesn't stock the breakroom with cheeseburgers. How dare they impose their vegan beliefs on me?

Do they prevent you from buying cheeseburgers with your share of the fruits of your labors for that company?

Health insurance is remuneration for labor provided by the employee. Regardless what the tax laws are around it, it is something exchanged between the employer and the employee in exchange for the employees' labor, expertise, and time.

[Griffin]

It's more equivalent to them having a contract with a local restaurant from which you can spend 10 dollars a day on food, and then requiring that for you and their other employees, meats can not be purchased from that restaurant, despite their interest in selling them to you.

You are outside of work, having been given a compensation package that includes meals from a specific restaurant, and your boss is trying to impose his morality on you.

Is this wrong? No, not really. It's not immoral in and of itself, I don't think. It's kind of a dick move, though. It definitely exerts control I don't think its okay for employers to have. I can see people wanting to pass legislation against it, favoring the right of the employee to use their compensation as they desire, and I don't really have a problem with it. I'm opposed to that sort of control as a general rule rather than any specific belief that eating meat is okay.

Essentially, the law just says "If you have a contract with a restaurant t(hat sells steak) to feed your employees, and an employee wants a steak when he goes to that restaurant, you don't really have any right to say he can't have a steak."

And I'm okay with that.

[quantumcat42]

Do they prevent you from buying cheeseburgers with your share of the fruits of your labors for that company?

The institutions in question aren't preventing their employees from buying birth control. The fact that birth control inclusion is now mandated has no bearing on if its inclusion should be mandated, which is the actual issue at hand.

[Dauric]

Do they prevent you from buying cheeseburgers with your share of the fruits of your labors for that company?

The institutions in question aren't preventing their employees from buying birth control. The fact that birth control inclusion is now mandated has no bearing on if its inclusion should be mandated, which is the actual issue at hand.

... False dichotomy. The organizations making the argument are trying to get the current "is" changed to "is-not", at least as far as it applies to themselves.

The question is one of agency over the insurance plan. The rules as they are support the individual's agency to use their account as the individual deems appropriate. The bit that the Catholic hierarchy is making an issue of is that they want the agency over the employee's use of the employee's health insurance.

So, do you support the individual employee's right to expression of their own beliefs through their own responsibility over their own actions (the default assumption in the U.S.) or do you support the large organization in it's desire to impose their religious directives on employees who at the time of hiring are not required to be members of the same group to whom those directives apply?

[quantumcat42]

Where's the false dichotomy?

I support the right of the individual to seek birth control, just as I support the right of the employer to have a say in how they compensate the employees. These rights are not in conflict, but one is being actively imposed upon and the other is not. We're disagreeing over which is which.

[Dauric]

The thing is, if the Catholic Health Association really wanted to not be involved in the purchasing of contraceptives or abortions or whatever they could easily just throw some quantity of money at the employees and tell them to buy their own health insurance (it's what my company does, $500/month and there's no taxes taken out of it). Removes them entirely from having any conflicts of agency over the funding of the employee's health insurance.

But that's not what they're doing.

The CHA is trying to increase their control over their employees by forcing their employees in to specific economic choices that adhere to the religious doctrine. This is in line with the Catholic church's top-down hierarchy with it's importance on the central authority at the expense of the individual, but at odds with the current labor laws. To get around this limit on the church's power over their employees the church is being more than a little hypocritical by demanding that the U.S. laws about respecting the expression of religion allows the Catholic church to repress the same expression in others because they're employees.

[quantumcat42]

Giving employees money to buy their own insurance would be fine; but really, at that point, why earmark it for insurance? It's their wages; if they'd rather spend it on hookers and blackjack, more power to them. But the mandate in question has severe disincentives for going this route, what with the fines for not directly providing insurance.

Churches (that are given an exemption from the mandate) aren't repressing their employees religious freedom either; they're just not paying for it directly, which is a fine balance of interests.

[Belial]

Churches (that are given an exemption from the mandate) aren't repressing their employees religious freedom either; they're just not paying for it directly, which is a fine balance of interests.

What you're saying is both true in a technical sense and a complete malicious lie in a practical real world sense.

[quantumcat42]

Churches (that are given an exemption from the mandate) aren't repressing their employees religious freedom either; they're just not paying for it directly, which is a fine balance of interests.

What you're saying is both true in a technical sense and a complete malicious lie in a practical real world sense.

I understand the disagreement, but the phrase "malicious lie" is, itself, a malicious lie.

[Dauric]

Churches (that are given an exemption from the mandate) aren't repressing their employees religious freedom either; they're just not paying for it directly, which is a fine balance of interests.

Because -being- a church employee generally assumes that the employee is a member of the religion in question, and shares the same interpretation of those doctrines with their employer.

Big megachurches that directly employ support staff (accountants, lawyers, cleaning staff, etc.) are the exception to the assumptions about church employment used to formulate these laws. The vast majority of individual churches are relatively small organizations who either get support services donated by their flock, or they hire independent contractors, and it's the independent contractors that provide the health insurance, so any objection by the church about the makeup of that insurance policy is a non-issue. The laws in this regard are written to the circumstances of the majority of religious employers, not to the biggest (and even then the big megachurches tend to hire outside contractors rather than directly hire employees to handle non-religious duties).

As long as the religious organization specifically employs only members of their religion, then an imposition of religious doctrine on the employees is... problematic (IE: litmus tests for belief) but it's confined to the religious organization in question.

When the relationship between the employer and the employee does not have an explicit -shared- religious component then it has to adhere to general labor laws.

[quantumcat42]

That all misses my point -- even if a church employee disagrees with the Church's doctrine on birth control, the exemption is not imposing on her rights. The church is not preventing her from obtaining birth control if she so chooses. The assumption that her rights and her employer's rights are in direct conflict here is entirely counterproductive to finding a solution that respects the diverse interests of all those impacted.

[Griffin]

What about my response - what do you think of the scenario I proposed?

[sardia]

Where's the false dichotomy?

I support the right of the individual to seek birth control, just as I support the right of the employer to have a say in how they compensate the employees. These rights are not in conflict, but one is being actively imposed upon and the other is not. We're disagreeing over which is which.

Does that mean you had a problem with the old ruling, which forced Catholic organizations to provide contraceptives as part of a their health insurance? Do you have a problem with the new ruling, where insurance companies have to provide contraceptives to their clients, regardless of where they work?

[Dauric]

That all misses my point -- even if a church employee disagrees with the Church's doctrine on birth control, the exemption is not imposing on her rights. The church is not preventing her from obtaining birth control if she so chooses. The assumption that her rights and her employer's rights are in direct conflict here is entirely counterproductive to finding a solution that respects the diverse interests of all those impacted.

Hypothetical:
A hospital janitor pulling just enough wages to get by finds out that she, or someone in the janitor's family and on their insurance needs birth control pills to treat ovarian cysts. If that janitor was working anywhere other than a Catholic hospital the law would mean they're not having to choose between rent/food/car payment/ etc. and healthcare. Under the religious exemption they're going to have to pay out of pocket, which means they have to decide between healthcare or being able to drive to work, or keeping a roof over their head, or clothes on their back, or food.....

Edit: This could be equally true for orderlies, or security (I had a roommate who worked hospital security), or receptionists....

This is the imposition on the individual. This is the -economic- harm caused by an employer forcing their morals on their employees.

The entire reason for the health insurance reform was to make sure that people have the resources to never need to make a decision about healthcare -or- the myriad other expenses in life, but to have the resources to be able to take care of their health -and- everything else.

Now I won't argue that the reform bill itself is a mess, but in this circumstance the idea that "Well the individual can pay for <healthcare procedure/service/perscription/etc.> out of their own pocket." is to defeat the entire purpose of making sure people have access to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay out of pocket.

[Falling]

Hypothetical:
A hospital janitor pulling just enough wages to get by finds out that she, or someone in the janitor's family and on their insurance needs birth control pills to treat ovarian cysts.

Dauric, you're right bu I want to throw out a different hypothetical because the response I've heard to that is generally along the lines of "Well that doesn''t really count as birth control in that case so it's ok."

There are a number of conditions that make any pregnancy more dangerous for a woman. Birth control is then preventing a possibly life threatening condition. It's not just a matter of lifestyle convenience. It's real medication used to save a life.

[Belial]

Or how about "the janitor or his/her daughter would like to participate in a normal part of human existence without being punished". If one is a quality of life issue, so is the other.

[quantumcat42]

What about my response - what do you think of the scenario I proposed?

Your scenario doesn't infringe on my right to seek steak -- so long as there are other places in town that serve steak, or I'm not prohibited from spending my normal wages on steak at the contracted restaurant, my right to buy steak is not in question.

Where's the false dichotomy?

I support the right of the individual to seek birth control, just as I support the right of the employer to have a say in how they compensate the employees. These rights are not in conflict, but one is being actively imposed upon and the other is not. We're disagreeing over which is which.

Does that mean you had a problem with the old ruling, which forced Catholic organizations to provide contraceptives as part of a their health insurance? Do you have a problem with the new ruling, where insurance companies have to provide contraceptives to their clients, regardless of where they work?

Yes, that is the problem I had with the old ruling -- and if the new ruling actually solves the issue of religious liberty, it's at the cost of extreme executive overreach.

Hypothetical:
A hospital janitor pulling just enough wages to get by finds out that she, or someone in the janitor's family and on their insurance needs birth control pills to treat ovarian cysts. If that janitor was working anywhere other than a Catholic hospital the law would mean they're not having to choose between rent/food/car payment/ etc. and healthcare. Under the religious exemption they're going to have to pay out of pocket, which means they have to decide between healthcare or being able to drive to work.

Yes, not being given things for free has a cost -- but it is still not imposing the employer's morality on anyone, and characterizing it as such is disingenuous. Employers don't provide car insurance or home insurance or food insurance, but no one accuses them of denying us those things. If Big Beef got a law through that mandated breakrooms be stocked with cheeseburgers (or mandated contracts with local restaurants to get cheeseburgers) and my employer was Hindu, it would be an imposition on his rights. Even if I had severe iron deficiency, and a cheeseburger for lunch every day kept me healthy, the mandate would still impose on his rights, but opposition to the mandate would not impose on mine. It would be a problem for me, sure, but not a problem of rights.

[Belial]

Yes, not being given things for free has a cost -- but it is still not imposing the employer's morality on anyone, and characterizing it as such is disingenuous. Employers don't provide car insurance or home insurance or food insurance, but no one accuses them of denying us those things.

Which is, again, ignoring the way things actually work in order to slip through a technicality. It's disingenuous. It ignores the fact that most people in the US cannot afford healthcare, and that the expectation of the system is that it will be provided by their employer if they are employed. Pretending that that's not the case in order to absolve yourself of responsibilities you don't like isn't clever, nor is it morally upright. It's scumfuckery.

But I tell you what. Reform the health care system so that the expectation of employer-provided health insurance is no longer ingrained at every level of that system, and the very minute you're done, we can entertain the bishops' feelings on whether they want to touch evil sluts indirectly-through-their-money-three-times-removed as though it was a moral decision being made in a vacuum.

[Ghostbear]

The institutions in question aren't preventing their employees from buying birth control. The fact that birth control inclusion is now mandated has no bearing on if its inclusion should be mandated, which is the actual issue at hand.

You have missed a very significant fact here: the health care coverage those institutions provide? That's part of their compensation. That's something the employees get as part of working there. And those institutions are saying "You can't get birth control this part of your compensation". So in fact, they are preventing their employees from getting birth control.

[Bears!]

The entire reason for the health insurance reform was to make sure that people have the resources to never need to make a decision about healthcare -or- the myriad other expenses in life, but to have the resources to be able to take care of their health -and- everything else.

Now I won't argue that the reform bill itself is a mess, but in this circumstance the idea that "Well the individual can pay for <healthcare procedure/service/perscription/etc.> out of their own pocket." is to defeat the entire purpose of making sure people have access to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay out of pocket.

Thanks Dauric. That was really helpful in clarifying my own thoughts about if health insurance should even be offered as a benefit in the first place. I appreciate your comments.

[Xeio]

Dauric, you're right bu I want to throw out a different hypothetical because the response I've heard to that is generally along the lines of "Well that doesn''t really count as birth control in that case so it's ok."

Except that the providers have never drawn that line. It's either all or none, and the catholic church is currently on the none line.

[quantumcat42]

Belial, I'm all for such reforms, and consider that a much better goal than imposing a blanket homogeneity on this diverse nation. Unless you're capable of having a civil discussion, though, I'm just going to ignore you.

The institutions in question aren't preventing their employees from buying birth control. The fact that birth control inclusion is now mandated has no bearing on if its inclusion should be mandated, which is the actual issue at hand.

You have missed a very significant fact here: the health care coverage those institutions provide? That's part of their compensation. That's something the employees get as part of working there. And those institutions are saying "You can't get birth control this part of your compensation". So in fact, they are preventing their employees from getting birth control.

They are preventing them from getting birth control through their insurance plan, which is hardly the only way it can be obtained.

[Dauric]

Dauric, you're right bu I want to throw out a different hypothetical because the response I've heard to that is generally along the lines of "Well that doesn''t really count as birth control in that case so it's ok."

Except that the providers have never drawn that line. It's either all or none, and the catholic church is currently on the none line.

I used the ovarian cyst hypothetical since it's the situation related in the congressional hearing from the woman who R.L went apeshit over and the scenario has been discussed at length in this very thread.

That said, I agree with the other alternate hypothetical scenarios could easily fill in the blanks as appropriate.

[omgryebread]

Aaaaaaahhh. It really truly doesn't matter whether or not it's a right. The religious organizations do, in fact, have a first amendment right to free expression. However, that right to free expression is not a blanket right to follow their religious mandates.

We can agree that first amendment rights are not unlimited, right? I don't have the right to utter "fighting words", nor can I incite someone to violence. A state could outlaw peyote, and even if consumption of peyote was part of my religion, I would not be allowed to consume it.

So the question is "what test must be applied to a statute that restricts religion?" The answer, as established in Employment Division v. Smith and City of Boerne v. Flores, is that the state must only prove compelling interest. So as long as the administration can prove that it has a compelling interest in mandating this coverage, the religious objections of the organization mean nothing, constitutionally.

[Belial]

Belial, I'm all for such reforms, and consider that a much better goal than imposing a blanket homogeneity on this diverse nation. Unless you're capable of having a civil discussion, though, I'm just going to ignore you

"Get up on table. I remove lungs now, gills come in two weeks."

Reforms first. Until then, people need birth control now-ish. No amount of wiggling makes that untrue.

[sardia]

Where's the false dichotomy?

I support the right of the individual to seek birth control, just as I support the right of the employer to have a say in how they compensate the employees. These rights are not in conflict, but one is being actively imposed upon and the other is not. We're disagreeing over which is which.

Does that mean you had a problem with the old ruling, which forced Catholic organizations to provide contraceptives as part of a their health insurance? Do you have a problem with the new ruling, where insurance companies have to provide contraceptives to their clients, regardless of where they work?

Yes, that is the problem I had with the old ruling -- and if the new ruling actually solves the issue of religious liberty, it's at the cost of extreme executive overreach.

Are you arguing against the new rule because it's an overreach of executive power? As for religious liberty, are you going to complain that Catholic religious rights are still being infringed? Nobody will know that religious liberties are being infringed until someone complains about it.