The proper role and scope of government

[Ibby]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...te?detail=hide

fairly dense reading - almost entirely supreme court opinion quotes - but one that CLEARLY establishes the constitutionality of the decision, pre-compromise.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Although I am not sure everyone can get free Birth Control there [at Planned Parenthood] or more people I know would do so.

I know condoms are free for anyone to walk in and grab no questions asked, and I know you can get a prescription on-site for birth control pills, but I don't know if you can get the Pill for free, or if it's just heavily discounted. But I know at a minimum they assume you have no insurance, and the cost is going to be aimed at low-income budgets.

[Ibby]

Here's another poser for you (collective you, but mostly people like merc who think the church should be able to opt out): if the catholic church - or their affiliated schools, hospitals, etc - doesn't recognize gay marriages as "marriage", should they still, in states where gay marriage is legal, have to acknowledge the civil compact between a gay employee and their spouse, when it comes to health insurance coverage or other benefits that extend to spouses?

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Ibram

[snipped]Here's another poser for you, if the catholic church - or their affiliated schools, hospitals, etc - doesn't recognize gay marriages as "marriage", should they still, in states where gay marriage is legal, have to acknowledge the civil compact between a gay employee and their spouse...

Certainly this poses a problem for American-British same sex unions. In Britain they are accorded spousal status. In America the Brit has to queue separately as an Alien. The union is not legal and not recognised.

And the same worry occurs in case of injury or death overseas. Men who have been together 10, 20+ years (and the rest) with no rights and no say in the life of their loved one.

But of course we're talking about something as ridiculous as marrying your dog, so it doesn't matter.

[Spexxvet]

“Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,”

What about the rights and conscience of the employee?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What about the rights and conscience of the employee?

Can you spell D-E-T-E-R-I-O-R-A-T-I-N-G

Several years ago, the Oregon Legislature made Oregon Health Sciences University and Hospitals,
fiscally independent of the Legislature, putting them into competition with other health care providers.
So OHSU elected to become the sole health-care plan (insurer) to their own employees.
Reverberations of conflict of interest are now rumbling in the bowels of "Pill Hill".
.

[Stormieweather]

Think of the precedent. If employer A is allowed to exempt certain things from being covered due to religious beliefs, where does that end?

Bill to allow employer to deny any preventative service

The bill failed, as well it should, but seriously...WTF is wrong with people? Offering coverage is not the same as forcing you to take the effing pills.

I literally had this arguement with an old friend on Facebook yesterday...he said, Obama wants to prevent us from having babies!!

ExCUSE me?

How would YOU go about reducing abortions and preventing unwanted pregnancies? How about we start with eduction and affordable contraception? And I'm not talking about the 5 month waiting list at the health department or braving the demonstrators screaming in your face at Planned Parenthood. I mean, my doctor checks me out, writes a prescription, I get it filled. Then, every month, I go to the pharmacy and pick it up.

Or, like in some places in Europe and in Mexico, buy the damn birth control over the counter without a prescription for pennies, or totally free with a prescription.

But no, that's anti-religion here in the land of the free, home of the brave.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Here's another poser for you (collective you, but mostly people like merc who think the church should be able to opt out): if the catholic church - or their affiliated schools, hospitals, etc - doesn't recognize gay marriages as "marriage", should they still, in states where gay marriage is legal, have to acknowledge the civil compact between a gay employee and their spouse, when it comes to health insurance coverage or other benefits that extend to spouses?

You think I am a poser because I support the church's Right to not pay attention to Obama? Haaaaa.....

Oh, and no, the Church doesn't have to do that because DOMA is still being fought in the courts.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You think I am a poser because I support the church's Right to not pay attention to Obama? Haaaaa.....

Oh, and no, the Church doesn't have to do that because DOMA is still being fought in the courts.

pos·er    [poh-zer]
noun
a question or problem that is puzzling or confusing.


And no, Merc, that's wrong. DOMA only applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. not to institutions. In states where gay marriage is legal, groups operating in those states HAVE to legally acknowledge the marriage in that state. Does that infringe on their religious liberty? Does it infringe on Catholics' religious liberty that insurance benefits to spouses have to be given even if said spouse is a second or third spouse after divorce?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

In states where gay marriage is legal, groups operating in those states HAVE to legally acknowledge the marriage in that state.

Not if they work for the Federal Government, they do not have to follow those rules, regardless of what state they work. And it is being challenged in every state in one form or another, for or against.

Does that infringe on their religious liberty?

No.

Does it infringe on Catholics' religious liberty that insurance benefits to spouses have to be given even if said spouse is a second or third spouse after divorce?

Good question. I believe they still provide benefits since the only place I know that you are identified as the second or more wife is in the military. But it does not effect your ability to get benefits. There is a huge difference here when you try to isolate the desire of same sex people to get "married" and the desire of the Federal Government to infringe a rule passed down by the Feds on a Religious organization.

Frankly they just need to change the laws to state all civil unions are subject to the same rules and benefits of a "marriage". Then the radicals who want to tell people who and cannot be married won't get their feelings hurt.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not if they work for the Federal Government, they do not have to follow those rules, regardless of what state they work. And it is being challenged in every state in one form or another, for or against.

Challenged, and lost, in states like Vermont. And I'm specifically referring to religious institutions like hospitals or schools, not federal institutions.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Good question. I believe they still provide benefits since the only place I know that you are identified as the second or more wife is in the military. But it does not effect your ability to get benefits. There is a huge difference here when you try to isolate the desire of same sex people to get "married" and the desire of the Federal Government to infringe a rule passed down by the Feds on a Religious organization.

but IF the catholic hospital knew you had been divorced, should they LEGALLY be ALLOWED to deny insurance to your new spouse? I say, no, they shouldn't. Because the civil institution of marriage (LIKE the civil institution of defining "basic health care coverage") outweighs the selective and exclusionary definition they use. I think CHURCHES, actual proper CHURCHES, can define marriage, or deny birth control, whatever way they want, and if you work for a CHURCH you surrender your rights to having civil institutions recognized, but if you work for a hospital or a college, your employer should be held to the same civil standards as any other secular institution.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No.

So why is a catholic hospital in Vermont being "forced" to cover gay spouses legitimate, but a catholic hospital being "forced" to cover birth control illegitimate?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Frankly they just need to change the laws to state all civil unions are subject to the same rules and benefits of a "marriage". Then the radicals who want to tell people who and cannot be married won't get their feelings hurt.

I would argue that's another "separate but equal" principle, and unconstitutional unless civil unions were the ONLY institution the government recognized.

[classicman]

Thats a good one, Ibs. I can respect them choosing not to marry within their religion, but on first thought I would have to say yes they should.

[Lamplighter]

As I said in my post above, this fight is not about contraception.
It is a power struggle of the Catholic Bishop's Conference.


NY Times
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
February 11, 2012

Bishops Reject White House’s New Plan on Contraception

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops have rejected a compromise
on birth control coverage that President Obama offered on Friday
and said they would continue to fight the president’s plan to find
a way for employees of Catholic hospitals, universities and service agencies
to receive free contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans,
without direct involvement or financing from the institutions.

The bishops will also renew their call for lawmakers to pass the
“Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,” which would exempt both
insurance providers and purchasers
— and not just those who are religiously affiliated —
from any mandate to cover items of services that is contrary to
either’s “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

I think this says that an insurance company can have religious beliefs or moral convictions.
This argument will be used by corporations to push further their control into the lives of employees 24/7/365.

[classicman]

a compromise on birth control coverage that President Obama offered

There was no compromise offered, money was never their issue AFAIK.


Ibs got me thinking too...
I wonder if Muslim hospitals be allowed to be run based on Sharia Law?

[Lamplighter]

Sharia law is a red herring. Santorum is more their man.