Violation of the Conscience Clause?

[Insane Duck]

Here are the facts as they were presented to me:

50% of all hosptials in the U.S. are Catholic affiliated (but still receiving government accreditation and funding). With the Affordable Care Act, these hospitals are now required to comply with new standards including requiring them to provide free access to birth-control (and, I think, abortion) for their employees. Although it hasn't been widely reported on, I'm under the impression that a great deal of people oppose this decision on the grounds that it violates the long standing conscience clause precedent and encroaches on religious freedom.

Link (finding facts on this has been pretty difficult, if anyone has any relevant information, please post it)

Do you support this move by the government?

[theprestige]

"You're not allowed to help anybody unless you help exactly the people I say, in exactly the way I say."

[catsmate1]

If the hospitals receive government funding they should adhere to the rules. If this is injurious to their consciences (or those of the catholic hierarchy calling the shots) they can decline further government funding; I'm sure the church will be willing to make up the shortfall.

[Didaktylos]

Point is, the RCC in the USA has been expanding their involvement in the healthcare industry with the deliberate intent of restricting access to safe, affordable contraception and abortion.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Insane Duck

Here are the facts as they were presented to me:

50% of all hosptials in the U.S. are Catholic affiliated (but still receiving government accreditation and funding). With the Affordable Care Act, these hospitals are now required to comply with new standards including requiring them to provide free access to birth-control (and, I think, abortion) for their employees.

Government has no business telling private organizations what kind of benefits to offer.

On the other hand, they are freely accepting government money, and government could attach strings to make you dance for it (which, in theory, shouldn't be allowed as the government can't construct powers, but that's a different argument.)

On the third hand, it's clearly politics trying to force people accepting money to do one thing to sing and dance to somebody else's idea of How Things Golly Should Be.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Didaktylos

Point is, the RCC in the USA has been expanding their involvement in the healthcare industry with the deliberate intent of restricting access to safe, affordable contraception and abortion.

Doubtful. See, they were offering hospitals long, long before snotty government officials decided to do the same, insinuating themselves in the slow growth of intrusion over the decades.

[bookitty]

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-...,7288220.story

Quote:

The new regulations were announced last month by the Department of Health and Human Services as part of an effort to guarantee that women receive free "preventive" healthcare services, including cervical cancer screening, breast pumps — and contraception. They require employers to include those services in their employee health insurance plans by August.

Religious institutions can qualify for an exemption if the services violate their beliefs, but not if they employ large numbers of people who do not share those beliefs. Thus, a Catholic hospital or university that employs largely non-Catholic workers must provide free contraception in its employees' health insurance, even though birth control violates Catholic doctrine.

No abortion and qualify for exemption if the majority of employees share the organization's view. Not as onerous as first presented.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by bookitty

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-...,7288220.story



No abortion and qualify for exemption if the majority of employees share the organization's view. Not as onerous as first presented.

Absolutely correct. Way overblown.

[MatildaGage]

Typically Medicare is the top funding source for nonprofit hospitals. FYI. It's not just a small amount of their funding.

I don't think objections should be allowed for religious reasons but yes for conscience reasons. Atheists have consciences too, and then the govt is not providing special privileges for religion.

If there are available alternatives within a reasonable distance then the issue seems moot, except possibly they should have to post a disclaimer prominently in their lobby, website, whatever stating they do not provide that service.

In what manner is a breast pump a preventive healthcare service?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Back in the day, landlords often denied access to rental units if you "lived in sin" aka, lived together but weren't married. Then of course were all the "we don't serve blacks here" forms of discrimination. While I suspect I'll get arguments about how this differs, attempts to couch all this discrimination in terms of religious rights is unfortunate because discrimination against other people's beliefs is the other side of this coin.

A Catholic hires a non-Catholic and insists that non-Catholic practice Catholicism. You can take the arguments presented in this Discovery Institute article, Free Birth Control vs. Freedom of Religion - The administration forces organizations to violate their religious beliefs, and turn it around. You get people trying to force others on both sides to follow a religion they do not believe in.

Quote:

When Pliny the Younger was a provincial governor in the Roman Empire, he wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan asking whether he should execute Christians who refused to burn incense in worship of the emperor. Pliny, in keeping with the customs of the empire, did not care about forcing Christians to believe that the emperor was a god. But in public they had to behave as if they did. Thus, the Christians were in the dock not so much because of their faith in a risen Christ as over their willful refusal to declare themselves part of the reigning social order.

I thought of Pliny when I read that the Obama administration, in creating specific rules to implement Obamacare, will require all employers (with a very narrow exemption discussed below) to offer their employees health insurance that provides FDA-approved contraception, female sterilization, and other “reproductive” services free of charge — even if the employer is a religious organization and doing so violates its doctrine.

According to the Ron Paul ilk, it's a matter of private property rights if a lunch counter owner wants to not serve blacks. I understand how they see things from that point of view. It's a tempting argument. But this society decided that was not going to be the case. If you offer a product for sale to the public, you cannot discriminate against people for their skin color or beliefs. The same is true if you rent, sell your house, and so on, you cannot discriminate. So why should an employer be exempt from discriminating?

I don't believe in junk medicine but if I hire someone in this state the law says any insurance I offer employees has to cover 'alternative' medicine. No one sees this as violating my rights or my beliefs. I didn't claim it was religious. Suppose you said your religion doesn't allow you to serve blacks at your lunch counter. You could drum up some story about the Tower of Babel and make a convincing case that the races should not mix. This current controversy is just another version of discrimination.

Either only hire people who believe your same religious views or don't expect the people you hire to follow your beliefs.


On a different note, I wonder how many of these same employers include full coverage for childbirth in their insurance plans? It seems to me that denying coverage for birth control would be costly if the insurance company then had to cover more births. If the policies were cheaper when birth control was covered my guess is this problem would go away.

[Insane Duck]

Someone clear this up for me. At first I thought the problem was that Catholic hosptials were being required to provide contraception to patients or lose government funding and approval. Now it looks more like all businesses are being required to provide contraception for their employees and this law makes it a legal requirement for Catholic hosptials to provide it to non-Catholic employees. What exactly does the law say?

[Sam.I.Am]

Other:

On planet X the contraceptives are mixed into the public water supply so this is a moot question.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Insane Duck

Here are the facts as they were presented to me:

50% of all hosptials in the U.S. are Catholic affiliated (but still receiving government accreditation and funding). With the Affordable Care Act, these hospitals are now required to comply with new standards including requiring them to provide free access to birth-control (and, I think, abortion) for their employees. Although it hasn't been widely reported on, I'm under the impression that a great deal of people oppose this decision on the grounds that it violates the long standing conscience clause precedent and encroaches on religious freedom.

Link (finding facts on this has been pretty difficult, if anyone has any relevant information, please post it)

Do you support this move by the government?

It's not forcing anyone to use the services, so I don't see what the problem is.

[Lamuella]

easy solution:

Nationalize all the hospitals and set up a single payer national health service. Then, they're run by a secular organization and we don't have the ludicrous situation of hospitals being "catholic affiliated".

[jasonpatterson]

Originally Posted by Insane Duck

Someone clear this up for me. At first I thought the problem was that Catholic hosptials were being required to provide contraception to patients or lose government funding and approval. Now it looks more like all businesses are being required to provide contraception for their employees and this law makes it a legal requirement for Catholic hosptials to provide it to non-Catholic employees. What exactly does the law say?

The federal government is requiring religiously affiliated organizations (like catholic hospitals) who provide health insurance to cover contraceptives and sterilization along with other preventative health services like mammograms but not including abortion. Actual churches are exempt from the rule. The government's argument is essentially that the religious freedom of a church to do what they like does not extend to every business that church opens, but only to the actual religious organization.

I wonder if there would be an uproar if this were about the government requiring Jehovah's Witness affiliated organizations to cover blood transfusions.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"You're not allowed to help anybody unless you help exactly the people I say, in exactly the way I say."

Yup, that is way the law works, isn't it grand. Govt. money comes with strings attached.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Back in the day, landlords often denied access to rental units if you "lived in sin" aka, lived together but weren't married. Then of course were all the "we don't serve blacks here" forms of discrimination. While I suspect I'll get arguments about how this differs, attempts to couch all this discrimination in terms of religious rights is unfortunate because discrimination against other people's beliefs is the other side of this coin.

...

According to the Ron Paul ilk, it's a matter of private property rights if a lunch counter owner wants to not serve blacks. I understand how they see things from that point of view. It's a tempting argument. But this society decided that was not going to be the case. If you offer a product for sale to the public, you cannot discriminate against people for their skin color or beliefs. The same is true if you rent, sell your house, and so on, you cannot discriminate. So why should an employer be exempt from discriminating?

Here's what people fail to realize -- you can't get to your statement "But this society decided that was not going to be the case" until you've spent decades using free speech to convince people that something was wrong.


It was like that for slavery, for female vote, for racial segregation laws, for abortion rights, etc. x 1000 different issues.


1. Almost nobody thinks X should be free, but some do.
2. They convince people.
3. More are convinced. More young people grow up with the idea, and hardened older people die off.
4. Eventually a critical mass is achieved. Laws are changed.

...then people come along and decide in courts that that's the proper way all along!


Which is philosophical nonsense, of course. You can't have courts overturning things until you've gotten a big critical mass of popular opinion to think so.




So, to bring the idea back around, you can't get to "Society decided that X was wrong, sorry charlie!" until you've spent decades with verbal persuasion.


Government should not be in the business of actively discriminating against people. But private citizens should continue to be persuaded, as that's what's gotten society as a whole to this point to begin with.

There's something that always disturbed me about this -- it was big, crowd-based activity that leads to the problems to begin with, which people lament. Then, rather than outlawing crowd-based behavior, they jump with joy when persuasion finally, after decades, builds up their crowd so it's big enough to force itself on everybody.

Slavery, government discrimination laws, laws forbidding abortion, laws forbidding women from doing things, these things wouldn't even exist to begin with if people didn't believe in their hearts it was Ok to force BS onto society as a whole as long as they had enough votes.

[Merko]

Hasn't even the Pope said contraception is under some circumstances the lesser evil? Providing access to something is not the same as encouraging people to use it. These institutions are still free to preach that ideally, unmarried people should never ever have sex.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Here's what people fail to realize -- you can't get to your statement "But this society decided that was not going to be the case" until you've spent decades using free speech to convince people that something was wrong.

It was like that for slavery, for female vote, for racial segregation laws, for abortion rights, etc. x 1000 different issues.

1. Almost nobody thinks X should be free, but some do.
2. They convince people.
3. More are convinced. More young people grow up with the idea, and hardened older people die off.
4. Eventually a critical mass is achieved. Laws are changed.

...then people come along and decide in courts that that's the proper way all along!

Which is philosophical nonsense, of course. You can't have courts overturning things until you've gotten a big critical mass of popular opinion to think so.

So, to bring the idea back around, you can't get to "Society decided that X was wrong, sorry charlie!" until you've spent decades with verbal persuasion.

Government should not be in the business of actively discriminating against people. But private citizens should continue to be persuaded, as that's what's gotten society as a whole to this point to begin with.

There's something that always disturbed me about this -- it was big, crowd-based activity that leads to the problems to begin with, which people lament. Then, rather than outlawing crowd-based behavior, they jump with joy when persuasion finally, after decades, builds up their crowd so it's big enough to force itself on everybody.

Slavery, government discrimination laws, laws forbidding abortion, laws forbidding women from doing things, these things wouldn't even exist to begin with if people didn't believe in their hearts it was Ok to force BS onto society as a whole as long as they had enough votes.

While I know this gets your Libertarian hackles up, Beerina, everything cannot be dealt with by laissez faire economics.

Making the case:

Women and the Affordable Care Act.

Quote:

Women Can Receive Preventive Care Without Copays. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, all Americans joining a new health care plan can receive recommended preventive services, like mammograms, new baby care and well-child visits, with no out-of-pocket costs. See a list of preventive services for women. (Preventive services benefits apply if you’re in a new health plan that you joined after March 23, 2010.) Learn about new women's preventive care guidelines issued August 1, 2011.

Birth control has been spelled out as being part of preventative care.

Quote:

The law also requires insurance companies to cover additional preventive health benefits for women. For the first time, HHS is adopting new guidelines for women’s preventive services to fill the gaps in current preventive services guidelines for women’s health, ensuring a comprehensive set of preventive services for women....

...Contraception and contraceptive counseling: Women will have access to all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling. These recommendations do not include abortifacient drugs. Most workers in employer-sponsored plans are currently covered for contraceptives. Family planning services are an essential preventive service for women and critical to appropriately spacing and ensuring intended pregnancies, which results in improved maternal health and better birth outcomes.

(emphasis mine)

A while ago there was a stink about the fact insurers covered Viagra but not birth control for women. The insurers were shamed into changing coverage. The right wing religious community did not make a fuss then. Wonder why not?


Of course, just like the claim that "Right to Work" laws are really about a right to work, or the claim that union busting creates jobs, or that voter ID laws are about preventing dishonest voting, each and every one of these campaigns has an underlying anti-Democratic Party agenda. This one is no exception.

[MatildaGage]

I dunno. I am on the fence.

A church is a church. They might have social work programs for parishoners, food bank for the general public, etc. as part of their Christian support of the community, but they're still mainly a church.

That does seem vastly different than a multi-million dollar business they operate known as a hospital.

Taxpayers already fund Catholic Charities where they advise pregnant teens to keep their babies no matter what, and stop providing services to folks who use birth control. (So says someone I know who works at one.) I don't think we should fund that either.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by MatildaGage

I dunno. I am on the fence.

A church is a church. They might have social work programs for parishoners, food bank for the general public, etc. as part of their Christian support of the community, but they're still mainly a church.

That does seem vastly different than a multi-million dollar business they operate known as a hospital.

Taxpayers already fund Catholic Charities where they advise pregnant teens to keep their babies no matter what, and stop providing services to folks who use birth control. (So says someone I know who works at one.) I don't think we should fund that either.

The question is how many of these Catholic or similar employers really ask their health insurance carriers to exclude birth control coverage? I'd like to see which employers are on the list.

I do not recall birth control being excluded from Catholic hospital employee health insurance plans until the Republic Party attack on the new health care reform bill. It never came up. This has come up like I said when it came to light that Viagra was covered while BCPs weren't. But this has never come up as an issue in other contexts. I smell a Republic Party rat.

[ponderingturtle]

Wow. Imagine the uproar if they made them actually save women's lives if they need an abortion.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Yup, that is way the law works, isn't it grand. Govt. money comes with strings attached.

Yup. Though too many religious organizations like the RCC want to have all the perks of government funds but no accountability. It's the same argument as they're using when they argue for government money for private school vouchers: they want the public money to run their schools but don't want to adhere to educational standards of public schools (like teaching sex ed). Kind of a pattern there... they seem to think the church-state door swings in only one direction

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Merko

Hasn't even the Pope said contraception is under some circumstances the lesser evil? Providing access to something is not the same as encouraging people to use it. These institutions are still free to preach that ideally, unmarried people should never ever have sex.

The irony here is the number of U.S. Catholics who regularly use birth control (which includes condoms) is pretty large. So it seems to me the Bishops are fighting a losing battle on this one.

[sylvan8798]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

If the hospitals receive government funding they should adhere to the rules. If this is injurious to their consciences (or those of the catholic hierarchy calling the shots) they can decline further government funding; I'm sure the church will be willing to make up the shortfall.

I didn't see anywhere where they said that the penalty for non-compliance is loss of government funding. Do you have a link for that? It was my impression that it is a REQUIREMENT, as in government will start arresting people if they don't comply.

[Insane Duck]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

I didn't see anywhere where they said that the penalty for non-compliance is loss of government funding. Do you have a link for that? It was my impression that it is a REQUIREMENT, as in government will start arresting people if they don't comply.

Well, I think that the affordable care act actually imposes fines and penalties for those who don't comply. You don't *have* to get insurance, but if you don't I'm pretty sure there are financial repercussions.

[sadhatter]

You know we were on the subject of refusal to fill (Jargon for not filling a prescription for belief based reasons.) in my class, and i mentioned that i am in the odd situation of only having OTC products as the products i would refuse to sell. ( bunk medicine , homeopathy, etc.)

I got a lot of blank stares as if no one thought that maybe there were people out there who didn't agree with selling someone a pill that wouldn't do anything. Yet i know **** well that if i attached some religious reason for the same action, it wouldn't have gotten that reaction.

What is it about religion that gets people a pass? An action is the same action if it is committed for religious or secular reasons.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

You know we were on the subject of refusal to fill (Jargon for not filling a prescription for belief based reasons.) in my class, and i mentioned that i am in the odd situation of only having OTC products as the products i would refuse to sell. ( bunk medicine , homeopathy, etc.)

I got a lot of blank stares as if no one thought that maybe there were people out there who didn't agree with selling someone a pill that wouldn't do anything. Yet i know **** well that if i attached some religious reason for the same action, it wouldn't have gotten that reaction.

What is it about religion that gets people a pass? An action is the same action if it is committed for religious or secular reasons.

I think your point is valid. And we restrict some snake oil but IMO, not enough. With OTC woo, we could control the ads more effectively without controlling the products. There is a free market option. But where you draw the line on the continuum of how far one can push the envelope of fraud is a different (but still valid) question.


I've been trying to see this campaign from the other side. I think it is motivated by an anti-Democratic Party agenda, making the health care bill look like it is biased against theists, which is not the intent of the bill by any means. It is the intent of promoting outrage against the BCP clause if you are in the Republic Party. However, there are people with legitimate concerns about the BCOP clause in the health care bill.

I like Joe Scarborough most of the time. He is a right winger I believe is still rational. Last night he was pointing out on his program that if we reversed this concept, and instead had a right wing government passing legislation denying the right to cover birth control, then the harm of this bill would be obvious.

I get his point of view. And I've tried to consider it in arguing that this legislation is indeed valid. I still come out agreeing with the legislation and of course wanted to scream at the TV that none of the left leaners on the program were debating the right points with cup a Joe.

When is it discrimination? When does it reach the level of needing government intervention? Who is being discriminated against?

Does the Civil Rights Bill discriminate against the lunch counter owner or rightfully protect the black patron?

How does gay marriage hurt any religious group?

Suppose you take that a step further, does the religious landlord have to rent to the gay married couple or the couple who are not married but live together? Whose rights trump whose in those cases?

All of these situations are one person's rights vs another's. Does the government rightfully intervene or is that overstepping? They are all judgement calls.

Scarborough's claim is that in this case the government is overstepping, is discriminating against certain employers within religious organizations. Well, what about the landlord or the lunch counter owner? Isn't the person who doesn't believe in religious restrictions on birth control or who is involved in a gay marriage also being discriminated against by the employer or the landlord?

From my viewpoint, the homosexual and the atheist (or other person who doesn't see BC as a sin) are being discriminated against. From Scarborough's viewpoint the religion based employer is the one being unfairly restricted. By what criteria do we decide?


In the case of the lunch counter owner the decision and current majority opinion is the lunch counter owner was unfairly restricting the lunch counter patron. The owner was in the position of power and the government stepped in to protect the less powerful lunch counter patron. The landlord has more power than the renter, the government steps in and protects the renter from discrimination. In the case of the employer, the employee would, if we use these criteria, rightfully deserve the government's protection against the discriminating employer.


What criteria are we using in the Civil Rights Bill? Are we using race or the powerful over the powerless? Discrimination by landlords? Religious beliefs? Personal beliefs? Is it OK to refuse to rent to unmarried or gay couples? Or is it powerful vs powerless?

I'm pretty sure Joe Scarborough was drawing the line claiming religious beliefs trumped the rights of the powerless. Back in the 60s many in the South felt that social beliefs about race trumped the rights of the powerless.

I don't agree with cup a Joe. I'm an atheist. I think the government should stop religious employers and owners from discriminating against their less powerful employees, renters and customers. I'm sure Joe would say the Constitution is supposed to protect the religious beliefs of the employer and owner.

I can see both points of view. I also think we need to define the problem fairly and truthfully. It is not about religious rights, period, end of story. It is not about individual rights, period, end of story. These rights conflict with each other. It's wrong to argue either side without recognizing this conflict.

We've decided as a society that we would not accept discrimination based on race, age or gender. (I happen to think homosexuality belongs with the physical criteria, race, age and gender but that's an off topic argument here so I defer that debate.) But these other areas we are currently debating are based on each individual's equal right to their beliefs.

If it is about a conflict between each individual's right to their own beliefs, do you defer to the owners/employers or the government? Does the government have a role to protect the less powerful against the more powerful? Does your religion trump mine because you own something?

Let's debate the real issues here, not the hot button framing issues.

[Dunstan]

What is the "Conscience Clause"?

[sylvan8798]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

What is the "Conscience Clause"?

Kind of like being a conscientious objector to the draft. At the pharmacy, you (the pharmacist) can object to a regulation that you have to provide birth control to a customer on conscience grounds, but in general you would then have to tell the customer she could get them down the block at pharmacy X.

[sylvan8798]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If it is about a conflict between each individual's right to their own beliefs, do you defer to the owners/employers or the government? Does the government have a role to protect the less powerful against the more powerful? Does your religion trump mine because you own something?

Let's debate the real issues here, not the hot button framing issues.

I think this issue is more complicated than people are realizing. It isn't about contraception, it's about the government dictating what the church has to do. While it may seem simple enough that the church just provides the coverage (against it's personal beliefs), they have to consider what else the government may mandate down the line. How far to you take the idea that the government decides?

It would not be a stretch at all for the administration, or some future administration, to mandate that every doctor or facility that provides OB-GYN services has to provide abortion services as well. Why not? Those are OB-GYN services, and there is a shortage of options in many areas of the country for women wanting an abortion. Easy solution. Mandate everyone add them to their services. Ponderingturtle even broaches that possibility upthread:

Quote:

Wow. Imagine the uproar if they made them actually save women's lives if they need an abortion.

While I hate slippery-slope arguments, I think there is a real issue here in whether the church can take a stand here against having their policy dictated to them, and where exactly they can or will draw the line.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

Kind of like being a conscientious objector to the draft. At the pharmacy, you (the pharmacist) can object to a regulation that you have to provide birth control to a customer on conscience grounds, but in general you would then have to tell the customer she could get them down the block at pharmacy X.

Hence the great situation of the christian scientist pharmacist.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

I think this issue is more complicated than people are realizing. It isn't about contraception, it's about the government dictating what the church has to do. While it may seem simple enough that the church just provides the coverage (against it's personal beliefs), they have to consider what else the government may mandate down the line. How far to you take the idea that the government decides?

It would not be a stretch at all for the administration, or some future administration, to mandate that every doctor or facility that provides OB-GYN services has to provide abortion services as well. Why not? Those are OB-GYN services, and there is a shortage of options in many areas of the country for women wanting an abortion. Easy solution. Mandate everyone add them to their services. Ponderingturtle even broaches that possibility upthread:

While I hate slippery-slope arguments, I think there is a real issue here in whether the church can take a stand here against having their policy dictated to them, and where exactly they can or will draw the line.

Yep that is the main worry that the will be forced to save womens lives. They should also be against organ donation as that also stops a beating human heart.

[sylvan8798]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yep that is the main worry that the will be forced to save womens lives. They should also be against organ donation as that also stops a beating human heart.

I would think we would be hearing a lot more about all these women who are dying because they were unable to get an abortion at their catholic hospital. Perhaps you have links to some information on them?

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

I think this issue is more complicated than people are realizing. It isn't about contraception, it's about the government dictating what the church has to do. While it may seem simple enough that the church just provides the coverage (against it's personal beliefs), they have to consider what else the government may mandate down the line. How far to you take the idea that the government decides?

It would not be a stretch at all for the administration, or some future administration, to mandate that every doctor or facility that provides OB-GYN services has to provide abortion services as well. Why not? Those are OB-GYN services, and there is a shortage of options in many areas of the country for women wanting an abortion. Easy solution. Mandate everyone add them to their services. Ponderingturtle even broaches that possibility upthread:

While I hate slippery-slope arguments, I think there is a real issue here in whether the church can take a stand here against having their policy dictated to them, and where exactly they can or will draw the line.

This seems to be a pretty good argument for why religious organizations shouldn't be allowed to run hospitals.

[Weak Kitten]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

Kind of like being a conscientious objector to the draft. At the pharmacy, you (the pharmacist) can object to a regulation that you have to provide birth control to a customer on conscience grounds, but in general you would then have to tell the customer she could get them down the block at pharmacy X.

As someone who takes birth control pills to prevent extreme periods (nausea, vomiting, and pain so great it can cause me to black out) I strenuously object to pharmacists not providing necessary medication. What if that pharmacist is the only one in a small town? Does the girl just have to suck it up and take the bus a hundred miles or take three to five days a month to lie in agony on the bathroom floor?

If we are going to let pharmacists decide what they will and will not give to patients then at least force them to put up a great big sign in front of their shop. That way those of us who need medicine and don't want to have to worry about the pharmacist objecting to curing our particular illnesses can avoid such shops.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

Kind of like being a conscientious objector to the draft. At the pharmacy, you (the pharmacist) can object to a regulation that you have to provide birth control to a customer on conscience grounds, but in general you would then have to tell the customer she could get them down the block at pharmacy X.

Well, yes, I gathered that this is the kind of sentiment being referred to. But when I see a title like "violation of the Conscience Clause" (and talking about "conscience clause precedent"), I want to know what is the supposed legal authority. It's not in the U.S. Constitution. (And since we're talking about a federal law, it's irrelevant whether particular state constitutions or statutes provide such protection.) I'm reasonably familiar with First Amendment jurisprudence and have not heard of that term being used by the courts. The linked article simply quotes "Sister Judith Ann Karam, president and CEO of the Sisters of Charity Health System" making some references to the phrase.

So, absent some actual legal precedent, I'm not seeing much basis for a legal challenge here other than hoping that the Supreme Court's Catholic majority will create new law. The law doesn't force any church to do anything; it merely imposes conditions on the receipt of federal funds, which are reasonably related to the purpose of the spending.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

I would think we would be hearing a lot more about all these women who are dying because they were unable to get an abortion at their catholic hospital. Perhaps you have links to some information on them?

Why? The answer to the family is that there is nothing that could be done because as a catholic hospital they never preform any abortion. See the firing of the nun who agreed to save a womans life.

People die all the time because they end up at a hospital that does not provide the level of care they need. This shouldn't be news.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

I would think we would be hearing a lot more about all these women who are dying because they were unable to get an abortion at their catholic hospital. Perhaps you have links to some information on them?

I think you should tell me why my daughter should not have her birth control pill covered by insurance if she works for one of these organizations. Her need is not based upon contraception, so why should her medication be uncovered?

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I think you should tell me why my daughter should not have her birth control pill covered by insurance if she works for one of these organizations. Her need is not based upon contraception, so why should her medication be uncovered?

Well, the government apparently says she shouldn't if she's in the minority...